Steam & Excursion > When You Do Size Comparisons First You Must Grab The Camera!

Railroad companies in the age of steam had reason to be proud of their new and modern steam motive power as it was delivered from the factories back East.  As the years went on the new steam locomotives generally became larger and more impressive than older power it was replacing.  The railroad companies would often stage "side-by-side" comparison photos events to show off these new and impressive machines.

In 1938 when the Western Pacific took delivery of it's fleet of 7 huge 4-6-6-4 articulated steam locomotives from ALCO, this was certainly something to be celebrated in pictures.  While not a fair comparison, but certainly a dramatic one, newly delivered #404 was used as the backdrop for the 1896 built 4-6-0 #122.  This photo was likely taken at Wendover, Nevada as the #122 worked in her later years on the Deep Creek Railroad.

While both engines sported a group of 6-coupled drivers, one would think that is where the similarities come to an end.  However, not so.  Despite the 52 years separating the build dates for these 2 steam locomotives, both were retired from service in the same year, 1950.

Martin



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/17 04:24 by LoggerHogger.

---

Wow that is a cool shot.  The 122 started its final stint on the Deep Creek in March 1938 when the DC's sole engine, #2, was sidelined for good.  The railroad made its last run in July 1939, so there was just over a year when one could see those awesome WP 401s passing little 122.

Z

Thanks for the photo, Martin.  One note, this photo was probably taken in Utah, just east of the Nevada state line...

Jeff Moore
Elko, NV

Wow,great pic! Love Anything WP related,especially any WP 401 class Challenger! I think it was mentioned in Ted Benson's book "Echos Down The Canyon, that these WP Challengers went largely "undocumented"?.due to relatively short service duty, and thier remote service area in northern Nevada/Utah. Any differences between UP/WP Challengers? And any more pics of these engines?

Jim Baker
Riverside, CA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/17 16:05 by RailRat.

RailRat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow,great pic! Love Anything WP related,especially
> any WP 401 class Challenger! I think it was
> mentioned in Ted Benson's book "Echos Down The
> Canyon, that these WP Challengers went largely
> "undocumented"?.due to relatively short service
> duty, and thier remote service area in northern
> Nevada/Utah. Any differences between UP/WP
> Challengers? And any more pics of these engines?

The WP Challengers actually had a few differences from the UP engines.  All were built by Alco, but the WP engines were built between the two major sets of UP 4-6-6-4s (the CSA1 and 2 classes built 1936-37 and the 4-6-6-4-3 thru 5 classes built 1942-1944).  Note, 3985 and 3977 are both 4-6-6-4-4 class engines. 

The WP engines had larger fireboxes (692 sq ft vs. 548 sq ft on the CSAs and 604 sq ft on the 4-6-6-4s) and larger overall evaporative area.  The WP engines had 70" drivers vs. 69" on the UP engines and the same piston measurements as the CSA classes (22" diameter X 32" stroke).  The 4-6-6-4 classes had 21" diameter pistons with the same stroke.  All WP and UP Challengers were built as coal burners, although UP swapped some of their engines to oil and even back to coal again.  The WP engines were always coal burners, which is why they only worked the east end of the railroad (east of Elko, NV), which was all coal fired.  The west end was always oil fired.  

The WP engines had higher tractive effort than all the UP Challengers (WP M-100s - 99,676 lbs., UP CSAs - 97,305 lbs. and UP 4-6-6-4s - 97,352 lbs.) although the engines owned by the DRGW, Clinchfield and SP&S were more powerful than the WP engines (all over 101,000 lbs.).  The boiler pressure of the WP engines was 265 psi vs. 255 psi on the CSAs and 280 psi on the 4-6-6-4s.  Of course, just like the UP, the WP had more powerful steam engines than the still impressive Challengers.  The 251 class 2-8-8-2s were monster power and could outpull even a Cab-Forward or a Big Boy.

Of course, in overall appearance, they did look like the UP engines, especially the earlier CSA classes with their single stack and not the dual, Big Boy style stacks of the later UP Challengers.  The tenders are probably the biggest difference.  While the UP engines used tenders with rounded top and bottom edgesm lookign almost streamlined, the WP engines had classic "box" tenders.

And, yes, they are widely considered to be underdocumented.  They had a very short life, ran across the arid region between Elko, NV and Salt Lake City, UT and never had the notariety of the UP engines.  Also, WP had the smallest fleet of built new Challenger types (7 engines).

You can see some more photos on Frank Brehm's website (http://www.wplives.com/archives/steam/4664/index.html) and we have some in the Feather River Rail Society archives.

Very cool engines.  And I love that shot with the little 122.

Z