Came across this picture of a park loco which has a plaque stating it once made an 800 mile continuous trip:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/57449426@N05/7271212126/

I'm not sure if that means non stop or just made a trip without going to the shop at one point. But brings me to my question:

Whats the longest non-stop run a steam locomotive ever performed??

The original Canadian Pacific Railway "Royal Hudson" No.2850 would be in the running for the longest trip:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Hudson
She is also preserved, at Delson/St.Constant, Québec!

In 1940, L&N streamlined their 4-6-2 no. 295 that had been built as a three cylinder engine which ended up out of service through most of the 1930's. They converted it to 2 cylinders, equipped it with an enlarged tender, bought special coal for it and assigned it to pull the new "South Wind" from Louisville, Ky to Montgomery, AL, a distance of 490 miles. It was advertised as the longest run of a locomotive in the U.S. at the time. There are probably others that did this on other railroads in later years but in 1940, L&N claimed the record.

-JH

800 miles has to be length of run without major servicing or changing engines. If the Soo Line 4-6-2 did this as a coal-burner, then the long runs must have had enroute coaling and probably ashpan dumping facilities.

Southern Pacific class P-8 heavy Pacifics (S.P. 2461-2475, built by Baldwin Locomotive Works in March-April 1921) were originally assigned to the ~225-mile eastern end of the Salt Lake Division, operating Ogden, UT to Carlin, NV on fast freight (reefer blocks) and passenger trains. The engines always ran as oil burners. By 1923 the run had been extended to Sparks, NV, the S.P. division point just east of Reno. Baldwin ads in the Locomotive Cyclopedia trumpeted this 536-mile run as the longest through locomotive run in the world at the time.

Santa Fe soon eclipsed this record, with their 3700 class 4-8-2s (IIRC).

- Doug Debs

It is important to distinguish between a run WITH one steam locomotive from Point A to Point B without removing or servicing but with stops, and actually, literally running the loco NON-STOP without even a signal or platform stop.

The latter requires either massive water capacity in the form of extra water cars, or water scoops and troughs. In addition, you're dealing with the legal/mandated requirements of the crew; either you grant a special exemption for a marathon run, or you find a way to change crews en route. Remember the "hundred-mile day" of loco crews in steam days?

As far as I know, the longest non-stop runs routinely made in steam days were scheduled runs of the Flying Scotsman (train, not loco) between London and Edinburgh on the London & North Eastern. Those runs were 392 miles, made with generous use of water troughs and the "corridor tender," a tender with a passageway for crew members to go from train to cab safely. LNER A3 Pacific 4472 (the Flying Scotsman loco)made the run in 1968 non-stop on an excursion, the last chance to make the run non-stop using the last surviving water troughs along with a second corridor tender for additional water capacity. And that run came close to failure after one red signal was accidentally not pulled for the special, and was only corrected with a crawling approach, much frantic whistling, and even someone dropping from the cab and running forward waving, as I recall.

While in preservation and on a tour in Australia, on 8 August 1989 Flying Scotsman the loco set another record en route to Alice Springs from Sydney, traveling 679 kilometres (422 mi) from Parkes to Broken Hill non-stop, the longest such run by a steam locomotive ever recorded. And, yes, it was staged just to set said record.

According to a history of the ATSF 3751 (http://www.sbrhs.org/history.html), the Santa Fe 3700 class locomotives were assigned to through service on the Grand Canyon Limited between Los Angeles and Wellington, Kansas, a distance of 1,534 miles.

In reference to the Soo engine, that would have to be a single run, with service stops for coal, water, and lubrication by crews, but no visits to roundhouses or other work. That was quite an accomplishment with older power like that. Later engines, such as NYC 4-8-4s, ran most of the way between New York and Chicago without relief (the Niagaras made one coaling stop, thanks to the huge coal supply they carried, but they also depended on track pans);the very notable runs by ATSF 4-8-4s have already been cited.

Coal burners had some difficulties to face the oil-guzzlers didn't have, notably ash disposal. The grade of coal and its ash content made a huge difference. That makes the runs Northern Pacific got out of some of its 4-8-4s even more amazing; I seem to recall that the road scheduled runs at something like 1,008 miles with them, and this was with that awful Rosebud coal the road used.

The Chesapeake & Ohio had what must have been a pretty good run with its Kanawhas. Though only the run between Russell, Ky. and Cincinnati, Oh. was only about 106 miles or so on a river division, the roller-equipped 2-8-4s and their crews were expected to go the whole way with no stops at all. I'll mention this wasn't the Pennsy or the NYC with track pans! Typical train length on this river division was about 100 cars. Reportedly some runs had the fireman sweeping dust into the stoker, others the train made it to Cincinnati but the crew had to get water at a plug before they pulled into the yard, with the water low in the glass to boot.

A more important general measure was utilization. NYC got some very impressive numbers out of its Niagaras, but at times it required almost heroic efforts, not due to the locomotives, but to the primitive service facilities NYC had. The N&W improved both locomotives and facilities, and made what would be strenuous efforts on the NYC easy.

Being a N&W fan, I've gotta throw a class J in here somewhere........Norfolk to Columbus??

I'm not certain, but I think the longest run a J had was on the order of 600 miles or so. That was not due to limitations of the locomotive, but partially due to the relatively short length of the N&W itself, plus the convenience of changing engines at Roanoke. Overall mileage for the class (and other modern N&W machines was quite high, though, thanks to those modern service facilities the N&W had, plus a management that had the sense to run the railroad like it was dieselized, but with steam engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%26W_J_class_(1941)

A number of roads had locomotives that could have equaled the overall mileage and utilization of the Js, but they either didn't have the servicing facilities for a fast turn around (N&W did in 45 minutes what most other roads did in three hours), or didn't have the brains to schedule engine runs properly.

"A more important general measure was utilization. NYC got some very impressive numbers out of its Niagaras, but at times it required almost heroic efforts, not due to the locomotives, but to the primitive service facilities NYC had. The N&W improved both locomotives and facilities, and made what would be strenuous efforts on the NYC easy."

Hold on just a second there........

The Niagaras routinely put in about 25,000 miles a month when in their prime (late 40's). That's about a 900 mile run just about EVERY DAY. The NYC had an online (over the mainline tracks) coaling station in Wayneport NY (about half way between NYC and Chicago) where the ash pans where dumped,the sand and coal refilled and grease applied if needed (While attached to the train). Along with tracks pans along the way so the engines could get a drink.

Not sure track pans, mainline fueling facilities and dependable locomotives add up to "primitive".

Yes, the N&W improved their locos and facilities, but the NYC had long since moved on to E7's and E8's that got fueled in Harmon and ran all the way to Chicago without refueling.

How many 900 mile runs did the N&W have that they did without changing the locomotive ? Did the N&W even have track pans ? Or mainline fueling facilities ?

Sure they had a nice spot to grease the locos quickly in the shop, but they had to take them off the train to get them into the shop.

"Non-Stop" is a bit misleading in this context, back then every passenger train stopped about every 100 miles (or so) to change crews. On the NYC the crews ran; NYC (actually Harmon) to Albany (~100 miles), Albany to Syracuse (~150 miles), Syracuse to Buffalo (~150 miles), etc.. So the train stopped. But the Engine and all the cars went all the way through, NYC to Chicago.

Primitive, I don't think so.

Cheers, Kevin.

This is like trying to choose which bridge is the biggest. I'm glad to see that some folks are thinking outside of the US for this one. Russia had some really long distances to cover and there is not a lot of data, South Africa has some wide open spaces and had condensing locomotives. The longest run is the US might not be a world record.

SP 4449, Miami to Portland, Oregon, Jan. 1977 under Amtrak auspices.

Does that count?

I would read that to mean that it was the longest regularly scheduled run in the U.S. where they put the engine on the point at Location A, ran X miles, and took the locomotive off at Location B. In this case "X" was 800 miles.

I don't interpret it to mean "non stop", nor do I take it to mean "ever accomplished", since obviously Death Valley Scotty's trip of 2,265-miles in 44 hours, 54 minutes far exceeds it.

I think it simply means "This engine pulled a passenger train for 800 miles a day, day in and day out. That's longer than anywhere else in the US that we know about."

Hello,

I'll have to stand with Kevin (NYCRRson) on his opinion. He referred to the Niagara which is my personal ultimate US locomotive. Not becuase it was advanced or experimental but the final refinement of the northern platform with most all design aspects done just right. Not because it was a beauty queen and as I recall many rail enthusiasts snubbed it in light of the hudsons which got most the glory. I liked the Niagara because of what it accomplished which in my opinion represented the pinnacle of the art in a mostly manual control mechanical machine and physical plant.

The NYC refined the task of scooping water to a speed of 80 MPH, which took development from the early stages of split tender tank seams and eruptions of water from the tank fill neck.

In Wayneport, do recall when they filled the coal bunkers, did they really not stop but crept through? If other servicing was done so beit. They ran them wide open from Harmon to Chicago, serviced them and ran them back, day after day. (~ 900 miles one way?). Has the NYC to Chicago timetable ever been faster since the days of the Niagaras and J3a Hudsons?

May both of these thoroughbreds rest in peace. What was routine then is absolutely amazing today in retrospect.

As I also recall rail enthusiats were irritated by them as they had air horns which would fool them on what was coming.

Put me back at a Water Level Route by a track pan, watching a 6000 roar by at 80 per, pulling the 20th Centrury Limited.........17 years before I was born!

Best Regards,

Randy

Hey, Randy, if you get that time machine working, save a seat for me, will ya? And while we're back there, let's make it count--add in Cumberland, Roanoke, Hinton, Altoona, Cheyenne, Chicago, Indianapolis, and anyplace we can find an interurban, too!