Slightly OT: Most important train locomotives

What do you think are the 10 most historically important locomotives? I am working on a project and need pictures/drawings of 10
locomotives. Am trying to decide which ones to use. Would appreciate your input. Thanks. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
WisdomSeeker wrote:

Remembering that this is 200 years of technological development, Diesel and Electric each need their own 10 most important.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It was the first, but only ran once because it was too heavy for the rails, and wound up as a stationary boiler. There were several mining locomotives developed in 1812 that worked very well, and proved the concept far better than Trevithick's locomotive did.

In terms of significant in terms of locomotive development, there was nothing really that interesting about this locomotive.
Baltimore & Ohio's little electric locomotives of 1895 should be put on there someplace since they were the first electric locomotives to operate mainline trains (even if only for a few miles through the tunnel).
Burlington's Pioneer Zephyr or the UP 10000 or some of the conteporary British lightweight internal combustion powered train set should be on there due to their starting of the lightweight streamliner.
Milwaukee Road's Hiawatha 4-4-2 was the first locomotive that was requied to operate at 100 mph just to keep the scheduled timetable, eventually producing the high speed service concept now operated on many lines today.
Alco's RS-1 was the first "road switcher" - the first diesel designed as a general purpose locomotive for whatever you wanted to move with it. Almost all freight diesel locomotives in the world today, except purpose-designed switchers, can trace their ancestory to this locomotive. Previous to that specific purpose diesels were being built in low number, just like the steam locomotives that came before them.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com" wrote:

"Firsts" always make it - well, it sets a target for others to shoot at ;-)

Very true, other than it frequently being claimed as "the biggest", "most powerful" etc etc which of course it wasn't. At least there are still examples in exsistance.

Oh goodie, another "first" to be knocked down! ;-)

If the Dutch hadn't been there first surely the Germans would have won that first?

Surely that would be an aside?

Only the US had "switchers".
I purposely stayed with steam locos, as those seem to have been thoroughly argued. Electrics and Diesels (note the name) seem to still be in contention.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter spake thus:

Now, see, Greg, that's where you're wrong.
Everyone had switchers. Other people just called them other names. Like where you're from, they're called "shunters", right?
They're still the same goddamn thing. Only anal pissants like you want to make a big deal out of the semantic differences.
--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "fuck" is incapable of writing a good summary
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Isn't it you making a semantic difference in claiming "the first road switcher"?
All the present day locomotives you are refering to - DC operated Diesel Electrics - trace their ancestry back to I/C generator/traction motor locomotives developed in Sweden around 1913. Those were railcars, self powered passenger carriages, but intended to pull mixed trains on mainlines.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very light weight trains.
This is why I used the term "diesel designed as a general purpose locomotive for whatever you wanted to move with it". I only called it a "road switcher" because that is what ALCO called it when it built the thing. The name "switcher" is a little deceiving in this name because if anything it wasn't designed for switching / shunting dutiy. It was designed to be a general purpuse do-anything generic locomotive.
The Swedish locomotives did not cause a revolution in the way railroads did business.
Almost the entire first production run of the ALCO RS-1 was grabbed up and sent to Iran in order to feed Russia during World War II. Thus, not only did the RS-1 change the way the USA thought about diesels, but a number of other countries as well.
I suppose also the term "most important locomotives" might also apply to the fact that the RS-1 played a role in Allied victory during World War II.
Important in what way? Influence on future locomotive designs? Popularity with the traveling public? Technological breakthroughs even if it didn't influence future locomotive designs?
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com" wrote:

Certainly - but all trains were very light weight originally.

I'd take you to task on that particular point. They proved the 'I/C motor/generator/electric motor' drive system could work efficiently and reliably and they were widely known throughout the loco design community world-wide.

Iran/Russia isn't/aren't exactly viewed as a leader in railway technology.

So did NZ's aircraft industry!

0
-1
0.5
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:
>> All the present day locomotives you are refering to - DC operated >> Diesel Electrics - trace their ancestry back to I/C >> generator/traction motor locomotives developed in Sweden around >> 1913. Those were railcars, self powered passenger carriages, but >> intended to pull mixed trains on mainlines. > > Very light weight trains.
Yes, these railcars were only intended for lightweight trains. But consider the two diesel loco types built by Burmeister & Wain and Frichs respectively for the Danish State Railway in 1929. These were mainline units, and were used to haul decent-sized trains.
Looking further afield, in 1931 the Royal State Railway of Siam bought 6 A1A-A1A locos built by the consortium Sulzer/Oerlikon/Henschel. These were mainline power, and at least two were still in service in 1977. Frichs built 7 locos for the RSR in the same year - 6 were 2-Do-2 units, and the seventh an articulated 2-Do+Do-2. The 2-Do-2s were flogged during WW2, and were withdawn during the mid 50s. The 2-Do+Do-2 remained in service until 1964.
Even further away, the Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway in Argentina had a number of mainline diesel locomotives in service from the 1930s onwards, most of which were very successful and had long careers. There are other examples, but these will serve to make the point that by the time the RS-1 was delivered, viable mainline diesels were already a reality.
> This is why I used the term "diesel designed as a general purpose > locomotive for whatever you wanted to move with it". It was designed > to be a general purpuse do-anything generic locomotive.
Indeed, they were. But so were all the examples quoted above, all of which predated the RS-1 by at least a decade.
> The Swedish locomotives did not cause a revolution in the way > railroads did business.
Arguable. Their influence was quote apparent in the Scandinavian countries, as well as the rest of the world. I'd make the point that in Europe, the diesel had stiff competition from electrification, which was already a well-proven and widespread technology.
> Almost the entire first production run of the ALCO RS-1 was grabbed > up and sent to Iran in order to feed Russia during World War II. > Thus, not only did the RS-1 change the way the USA thought about > diesels.
I'd regard the RS-1s on the Trans-Iranian as a special case. I reckon the diesels already in service on US railroads during WW2 had the greatest influence on the way the USA thought about diesels.
Cheers,
Mark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[ ... ]

Do you know where in Thailand these ran? Any pics online? There seemed to be some separation of equipment with little interchange between the North and Northeast lines and the line that ran south to Malaysia.
As and aside, what's the significance of the + and - in things like 2-Do+Do-2? If I ever knew the distinction, I've forgotten it.
--
Bill Kaiser
snipped-for-privacy@mtholyoke.edu
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mtholyoke.edu wrote:

I'm not sure, Bill. Two of the 1931 Sulzers wound up on the isolated Maeklong line. The Frichs locos were used on the Bangkok - Singapore International Express. Other than that, I don't know.

Again, I don't know. Google Australia seems to down at the moment...

The + indicates an articulated joint, the - indicates the speartion between bogies or trucks of one engine unit or articulated section.
Cheers,
Mark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mtholyoke.edu wrote:

The "+" indicates two locomotives joined permanently, often with major components like transformers or train heating boilers placed in only one half. (example; SBB Ae 8/8 Bo'Bo'+Bo'Bo' might be two Bo'Bo's permanently coupled together, both controlled from a single cab at either end) The "-" where the "+" might have been would indicate a full length frame over two or more main frames. (example SBB Ce 6/8 1'C'-C 1'' where a single body frame sits on two 1'C swivelling frames or bogies)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter spake thus:

Well, folks, welcome to Usenet, where the "facts" are pretty much whatever you want to make them. On the one hand, we have a previous poster (M. Newton) who tells us:
The + indicates an articulated joint, the - indicates the speartion between bogies or trucks of one engine unit or articulated section.
Whereas this one says:

Take your pick.
The moral of the story: something about "very large grains of salt" ...
--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "fuck" is incapable of writing a good summary
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Both descriptions are basically saying the same things.
There is the complication of differing methods of notation from different countries - the US system tends to count wheels, the Germanic system adds +, -, ', etc which gives further information.
There are numerous variations of locomotive articulation and design, some of which are difficult to categorize. Take for example several different European 2-6-0 steam locomotives, one type which had an additional carrying axle added between the second and third driving axles to reduce weight and another class which was built that way. Another loco (Pfalz) was of the 4-4-2 type but had a booster axle in the center of the front bogie which was jacked down for additional traction - try categorizing those.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter spake thus:

Sure: it's a 4(*6)-4-2, where "*" means "sometimes". Everyone knows that!
--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "fuck" is incapable of writing a good summary
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

I knew that =8^)>
It can't be a (*6) because in the booster position it's a (*2-2-2) or 1a1' bogie. 2(a)'B 1'.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Both Greg and I have given the same answer. Either we haven't made our explanations clear enough, or you can't understand a simple engineering concept. The SBB Ae8/8 *is* an articulated loco. Neither half can run independently of the other. But don't take my word for it, at least not without a large grain of salt.

Another moral might be: Try to read for comprehension before making snide remarks. Or maybe do a bit of your own reading, and see for yourself that we are both correct. But don't take my word for it, at least not without a large grain of salt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Wrong. The bloke who is on the ground is the shunter, not the loco.

I find myself agreeing with Greg, although he could have expressed himself more clearly. Road switchers, as exemplified by the Alco RS-1, were originally a US-only concept. Until the rest of the world was overrun by US diesel exports...
Cheers,
Mark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Newton wrote:

Stop that right now Mark!!!

That's better. ;-)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:

Mate, when you make sense I'll back you up every time.

No worries!
Cheers,
Mark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.