Steam & Excursion > ATSF 5011 class on PRR

Anyone have any first hand information on what the PRR enginemen thought of the Santa Fe 5011 class 2-10-4 locos ? Especially as compared to their own J1 class engines ?

PRR leased some ATSF 2-10-4's in 1956.

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/740/t/184628.aspx

Posted from Android

A book I have talks briefly about it. If I remember correctly, they said it was easier to start a train with the PRR locomotives(smaller drivers) but once they had it moving the ATSF locomotives were the better performers.

Posted from Android

When I was in Columbus , Ohio June 1, 1956, the crew that I visited with; the whole conversion was that the AT&SF was oil fired and the PRR was coal fired. wag216



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/17 19:11 by wag216.

I'm sure that the preferred engine was the one that paid the most (weight on drivers) and got them over the road and tied up quicker.

Thanks for the link above and the replies.

I like both engines, but those 5011's were really something from what I've always heard.
Born too late.

A-1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A book I have talks briefly about it. If I
> remember correctly, they said it was easier to
> start a train with the PRR locomotives(smaller
> drivers) but once they had it moving the ATSF
> locomotives were the better performers.
>
> Posted from Android

This is what I have read, as well. The ATSF locomotives, due to their 74" drivers and 3.5 Factor of Adhesion, could not generate as much starting tractive effort as the PRR engines, which had 70" drivers, a Factor of Adhesion of just under 4, and a trailing truck booster supplying 15,000lbs of TE. But the big Santa Fe engines, with 30 psi greater boiler pressure, greater direct heating surface, large pistons, and limited cutoff could generate significantly more horsepower once the train was rolling. Everything I have read says the PRR men were very impressed with the ATSF engines. The ATSF engines were reportedly returned missing the cab seat cushions, because the PRR crews found them to be more comfortable than their own power's seats!

Scott Griggs
Louisville, KY

There is a small sidebar story about the ATSF 5011 class from a Piqua railfan that watched them. When they were first leased, the plan was to run them from Columbus to Logansport, IND, via Urbana, Piqua and Bradford, Ohio. (Those tracks are long gone now). There were some crossovers on that double track route that were a problem either for the long driver wheelbase or the 8 wheel tender trucks. They were quickly switched to the Columbus-Bellevue-Sandusky route and that is where all of the railfan photography was concentrated.

"The ATSF engines were reportedly returned missing the cab seat cushions, because the PRR crews found them to be more comfortable than their own power's seats!"

Some things never change !

sgriggs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A-1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A book I have talks briefly about it. If I
> > remember correctly, they said it was easier to
> > start a train with the PRR locomotives(smaller
> > drivers) but once they had it moving the ATSF
> > locomotives were the better performers.
> >
> > Posted from Android
>
> This is what I have read, as well. The ATSF
> locomotives, due to their 74" drivers and 3.5
> Factor of Adhesion, could not generate as much
> starting tractive effort as the PRR engines, which
> had 70" drivers, a Factor of Adhesion of just
> under 4, and a trailing truck booster supplying
> 15,000lbs of TE. But the big Santa Fe engines,
> with 30 psi greater boiler pressure, greater
> direct heating surface, large pistons, and limited
> cutoff could generate significantly more
> horsepower once the train was rolling. Everything
> I have read says the PRR men were very impressed
> with the ATSF engines. The ATSF engines were
> reportedly returned missing the cab seat cushions,
> because the PRR crews found them to be more
> comfortable than their own power's seats!
>
> Scott Griggs
> Louisville, KY

I also read somewhere that the PRR crews liked the fact the 5000's were oil fired and easier to work. No ashes to dump, no coal dust, no cranky augers to mess with....

And they wore them out before returning to ATSF I read.

SD45X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And they wore them out before returning to ATSF I
> read.

I believe I heard the story that if any of the engines were returned to service, the PRR would pay for the repairs. I don't think any of those engines ever steamed again, or ended up in preservation...but if one did....could the contract be enforced?