Class 273 (Locobase 11146)

Data from Schenectady Locomotive Works, Illustrated Catalogue of Simple and Compound Locomotives (Philadelphia: J B Lippincott, 1897), pp. 140-141..

Class 787 (Locobase 9435)

Data from New York Times of 2 November 1898.

Locobase 3285 shows the comparison engine, this compiler believes, to the present design, which was supervised by young Cornelius Vanderbilt, III. He was then working for the Superintendent of Motive Power and Rolling Stock William Buchanan. The Times's interest in Vanderbilt's locomotive likely stemmed from a) he was a Vanderbilt, for heaven's sakes, and b) steam locomotives were seen as the most compelling motive technology then in widespread use.

The New York Central would put 5 Moguls into service with Vanderbilt's corrugated firebox three years later; see Locobase 4104.

Class ??? (Locobase 2624)

Data from 1899 Brooks Catalogue

Although described by the catalogue as a "Mogul Freight," the 64" drivers would have let this engine take on some light passenger duties as well. Wagon-top boiler had the steam dome right ahead of the cab.

Based on its failure to appear in the B.Rumary, 25 Kingscombe, Gurney Slade, Radstock, BA3 4TH, ENGLAND and Jeremy Lambert summary as supplied by Allen Stanley in March 2004, Locobase suspects this locomotive may not actually have gone into NYC service.

Class ??? (Locobase 3285)

This freight hauler was the subject of a 28 October 1898 Railroad Gazette which recounted a recent series of freight runs with up to 81 loaded cars or 126 light cars. Trailing load of the loaded train was 3,428 tons. Water consumption was pleasingly low, according to the article, coming in at 12.9 lb of water per car per mile.

Class Brown (Locobase 13516)

Data from "Trial of Engines on Boston & Albany RR", Locomotive Engineers Journal, Volume X, No 12 (December 1876), p. 541.

The B & A tested three locomotives in freight service in 1876, the Mogul shown here and the two Eight-wheelers Adirondack (Locobase 13517) and Virginia (Locobase 13518). The article cited above discussed the results in considerable detail. See 13517-13518 for an excellent assessment of the likely reasons for the Eight-wheelers' success.

The Brown had what the report described as an "ordinary form boiler, with steam dome and dry pipe ....the distinctive difference between these engines is thought to be in the steam ports [of the cylinders], those of the Brown being 14 in long, and 1 1/8 in wide" (Those of the Adirondack and the Virginia were smaller.)

Trials consumed 37 days. Brown and Adirondack (which had the same wheel diameter and power dimensions) pulled trains on 9 round trips between Springfield and Boston and 14 round trips between Greenbush and Pittsfield. Brown and Virginia (which had 60" drivers) each took 5 round trips between Greenbush and Pittsfield.

Result: a sound thumping by the 4-4-0s in terms of fuel consumed. The Mogul's total fuel consumption came to 225,148 lb (112.6 tons) versus the combined total of the two Springfield-built engines of 176,000 lb (88 tons), a difference of 28%. The summary speculates that the domeless design of the 4-4-0s together with a more economical throttle may have made the difference.

Class Class P/E-1A (Locobase 3941)

Another in a series of Moguls built for the NYC, this particular batch had less heating surface than those put in service in 1899 according to a comparison published in the Railroad Gazette of 30 March 1900. Compared to the slightly earlier Mogul delivered in 1898, however, these engines showed an increase of almost 15% in power.

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp141.gif (visited December 2002) It shows a smaller boiler than the RG's account, but as it is the railroad's guide, I go with the NYC.

Class E-10 (Locobase 5263)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp163.gif (visited December 2002).

These low-drivered locomotives were of medium size in the range of NY&HRR Moguls.

Class E-1B (Locobase 5253)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp143.gif (visited December 2002) These 6 locomotives were slightly larger than the contemporaneous E-1A -- 4 came from Depew, 2 from West Albany. The 1930 NYC guide presented by the same site shows a rebuilt boiler for two of them with 6 fewer tubes; credited heating surface dropped to 2,254 sq ft (about 99 sq ft less).

Class E-1D/E-1E (Locobase 5254)

These are the E-1C Moguls as built by Schenectady. (Two actually were shop-built by Depew in 1902-1903). The E-1Es only differed by higher weights on the drivers (136,200 lb) and total engine weight (157,100 lb).

Listed in a 1901 Railroad Gazette (vol XXXIII #14), p 232 account of the redesignation of many of the New York Central's locomotives. It seems likely that the "P-2" and "P-5" were redesignated E-1D and E-1E, but it's been difficult to confirm this.

Another in a series of Moguls built for the NYC, this particular batch had less heating surface than those put in service in 1899 according to a comparison published in the Railroad Gazette of 30 March 1900. Compared to the slightly earlier Mogul delivered in 1898, however, these engines showed an increase of almost 15% in power.

Several rebuilt with a boiler that had 355 2" tubes, total heating surface of 2,447 sq ft (firebox heating surface contributing 193 sq ft).

Class E-2 (Locobase 5255)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp148.gif (visited December 2002)

This was a single compound locomotive based on the E-1D. The guide says the "cylinders are 3 1/2" farther forward, adding this distance to the smoke box back of center of stack and to the wheelbase. The total length of the smoke box is 8 1/2" more than class E-1D."

Class E-3A (Locobase 5257)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp153.gif (visited December 2002).

Profiled in the Railroad Gazette of 10 May 1901, this Mogul was built to explore the possibilities of the Vanderbilt boiler. The Vanderbilt was designed to eliminate the weaknesses of the staybolt boiler. The standard firebox was replaced by a Morison suspension-type cylindrical firebox with an internal diameter of 59 inches. 4-inch corrugations in the walls were designed to strengthen the firebox while offering up more heating surface.

Schenectady's engines had sling stays under the front end of the firebox; Baldwin's did not. Otherwise, they were virtually identical and both builders provided the rotund boiler that was intended to provide more steaming space than that found in the original Vanderbilt design.

Although the article claimed savings over the conventional boiler, the data shows a considerably smaller firebox heating surface, which suggests that the larger grate and firetube heating surface may have been wasted. Also, the high number of fire tubes must have offered many more opportunities for leakage and failure.

In any event, very few locomotives were ever built with the Vanderbilt boiler.

Class E-4 (Locobase 4105)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp155.gif (visited December 2002). One of the older Mogul classes still in service when the guide was assembled. The profile shows a long cab with four windows per side.

Class E-5 (Locobase 5259)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp157.gif (visited December 2002).

Low-drivered, but relatively long-wheelbase Mogul class from a small builder.

Class E-5A/E-5B (Locobase 5258)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp159.gif (visited December 2002).

Mid-80s Mogul of moderate power. Staufer (New York Central's Early Power, 1967) shows #859 on p. 137, when this part of the system was still known as the Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburg.

E-5B had a slightly larger boiler, but put less weight on the drivers. One locomotive in the guide (1795).

Class E-62A/B/C/D (Locobase 7662)

Data from CCC&StL 3 -1914 Locomotive Diagrams supplied in May 2005 by Allen Stanley from his extensive collection.

Locobase doesn't know when these Moguls first began operating on the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & Indianapolis, but believes it was 1888. See Locobase 7663 for a Big Four Mogul from 1887, which had very similar specs.

After the first was delivered from Grant, the others all came from the Big Four's own shop. As delivered, the class had a 17.9-sq ft grate presenting 110 sq ft of heating surface.

In 1910-1911, the class received a new radial stay boiler with a longer firebox with a larger grate that raised the heating surface area to 116 sq ft. In addition to the increased grate area, boiler pressure climbed from 140 to 170 psi, and adhesion weight increase by 3 tons.

Class E-65 (Locobase 7663)

Data from CCC&StL 3 -1914 Locomotive Diagrams supplied in May 2005 by Allen Stanley from his extensive collection.

Locobase suspects that the data for this set of Brooks engines apply also to the Big Four-built Moguls shown in Locobase 7662 before they were fitted with the radial-stay boiler described in that entry.

Class E-7 (Locobase 5260)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp161.gif (visited December 2002).

Low-pressured Moguls with an odd driver size (most were either 57" or 64"), evenly spaced. Relatively large grate area, however. Fall Brook pulled together several coal roads that ran from the Beech Creek coal fields in Pennsylvania to the NYC main line between Rochester and Syracuse. Taken over by the NYC & HR in 1899.

Class E-8 (Locobase 5261)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp162.gif (visited December 2002).

Virtually identical to the Fall Brook Coal Company E-7s (Locobase 5260) , with slightly larger cylinders offset by lower boiler pressure. Also 3 tons lighter on the drivers. This Pennsylvania coal road soon became part of the New York Central system, where these locomotives were designated E-8.

Class E-9 (Locobase 5262)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp162.gif (visited December 2002).

The guide's entry on this small Mogul class is missing some information. Note, though, the very small drivers. Heating surface data from tables created by Dr. Jonathan Smith of Iowa State and hosted on http://www.math.iastate.edu/jdhsmith/terminal ...(10 Dec 2004).

Class EC (Locobase 5249)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp137.gif (visited December 2002). See also

Data from Schenectady Locomotive Works, Illustrated Catalogue of Simple and Compound Locomotives (Philadelphia: J B Lippincott, 1897), pp. 132-133

Identical to the ED class (Locobase except for lower drivers.

Class ED (Locobase 5250)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp137.gif (visited December 2002). See also Schenectady Locomotive Works, Illustrated Catalogue of Simple and Compound Locomotives (Philadelphia: J B Lippincott, 1897), pp. 134-135.

Part of the Class E (then Class J) program of the late 1880s-early 1890s, this batch appeared in two other, slightly different varieties also built by Schenectady. Classes EC and EE have separate entries.

Class EE (Locobase 5251)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp138.gif (visited December 2002).

The last of the ED built by Schenectady, these Moguls increased their tractive effort by increasing the boiler pressure. They were the last locomotives to be ordered by the West Shore before that railroad was taken over by the NYC & HR.

Class EF (Locobase 5252)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp138.gif (visited December 2002).

The last of the ED built by Schenectady, these Moguls increased their tractive effort by increasing the boiler pressure.

Class Ex (Locobase 5296)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp209.gif (visited December 2002).

Mid-80s Mogul from a predecessor railroad of the New York Central system.

NB: The direct heating surface (including the firebox heating surface) is an estimate calculated by subtracting the calculated tube heating surface from the reported total evaporative heating surface.

Class J/E, EA, EB (Locobase 4102)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp133.gif (visited December 2002).

Numerous Mogul class delivered by three builders:

Class Builder Number range Dates

E Brooks 1453-1462 Oct 89 & 9, 10/1890

1502-1527 (Works #1567-1576,

1724-1747)

EA Rome 1483-1502 Oct 89 to Jan 90

EB Rogers 1528-1577 June-Sep 1890

Class P-2/E-1C (Locobase 4106)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp145.gif (visited December 2002) and matches the locomotive identified as the P-2 (later "E-5") described by RG.

Described as a standard Mogul, the data for this class appeared in two different issues of the Railroad Gazette in 1901. The 10 May 1901 article describes experiments with the Vanderbilt boiler and uses 1753 of this class for comparison.

Most unusual feature of this class: It was built by that company in Pennsylvania that the New York Central seldom patronized. The E-1Ds were identical and built by the railroad's usual partner, Schenectady.

Class V-1/E-3 (Locobase 4104)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp151.gif (visited December 2002). Works numbers were 17637-17638 in April 1900.

Profiled in the Railroad Gazette of 10 May 1901, this Mogul was built to explore the possibilities of the Vanderbilt boiler. The Vanderbilt boiler was designed by Cornelius Vanderbilt, III, to eliminate the weaknesses of the staybolt boiler. The standard firebox was replaced by a Morison suspension-type cylindrical firebox with an internal diameter of 59 inches. 4-inch corrugations in the walls were designed to strengthen the firebox while offering up more heating surface.

Baldwin built two of these while Schenectady built three. Schenectady's engines had sling stays under the front end of the firebox; Baldwin's did not. Otherwise, they were virtually identical (EHS in the Schenectady engines was 2,732 sq ft) and both builders provided the rotund boiler that was intended to provide more steaming space than that found in the original Vanderbilt design.

Although Vanderbilt's boiler wasn't successful, he was credited with a cylindrical tender design in 1901 that saw widespread service on several major railroads.

Although the article claimed savings over the conventional boiler, the data shows a considerably smaller firebox heating surface, which suggests that the larger grate and firetube heating surface may have been wasted. Also, the high number of fire tubes must have offered many more opportunities for leakage and failure.

In any event, very few locomotives were ever built with the Vanderbilt boiler.

As for the two Baldwins on the NY & HR, both were rebuilt with a conventional boiler in September and April 1904, respectively. 1766 then served two more decades before being scrapped in October 1924. 1767 was sold in 1916 to the Raquette Lake as #2. When the RL RR was folded in to the NYC in 1936, the engine came back as 1927 and was scrapped in November 1941.

Class V-2/ E-10 / E-1D (Locobase 4111)

These show up in a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/ncy-lbp38-39.gif (visited December 2002) as having been built in 1902-1903. Another source of information -- Railroad Gazette (Vol XXXIII, No 14 -- 1901) -- has the information as shown in the specs. But Locobase can find no NYC diagram that matches the specs.