Class 12/E-9 (Locobase 5262)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (visited December 2002). Works numbers were 4209-4210, 4216-4217 in November 1889.

This small Mogul had small drivers. In later years, the 1794 received 55" drivers and was reclassified as E-9a. All were retired by 1909.

NB: Total evaporative heating surface area came from Dr Jonathan D H Smith's tables at [] ([], consulted in 2004). Subtracting from this figure the calculated surface area of the boiler tubes yields the estimated firebox heating surface area.

---

Class 19B/J/E/E, Ea, Eb (Locobase 2624)

Data from Catalogue Descriptive of Simple and Compound Locomotives built by Brooks Locomotive Works, Dunkirk, NY (Buffalo, NY: Matthew-Northrup Company, 1899). See also "19 in x 26 in Mogul - Brooks Locomotive Works", Railroad Gazette, Volume 22 (25 July 1890), p. 519-521. (Specifications taken from the RG report; they differ only slightly from those given in the Brooks catalogue.) See Locobase 5250 for Schenectady Locomotive Works' objections to the attribution of this prolifically produced design to Brooks.

Three builders contributed locomotives:

Class Builder Works numbers Road Dates

E Brooks 1567-1576 in October 1889, 1724-1741 in September 1890, and 1742-1743 in October. 1453-1462, 1506-1527 (after renumbering)

EA Rome 542-561 1483-1502 October 89 to January 1890

EB Rogers 4323-4389 1528-1577 June 1890 to September 1890

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. RG noted the crown bar design arched 2 1/2" above the top firebox sheet and while their dimensions might seem small for a 54" wide firebox, "the strength is probably equal to those having larger dimensions." And, RERJ added, "little trouble is experienced with crown bars breaking, and cases are rare where they are broken under pressure."

More than half of the the class would later be rebuilt with radial-stay boilers; see Locobase 4102.

---

Class 21/E-8, Ex (Locobase 5261)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (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. For some reason, the 22, now renumbered 1998, was assigned to the Pittsburgh & Eastern and placed in its unique Ex class. Later it was reunited in Class E-8.

---

Class 50 (Locobase 16658)

Data from "Adirondack & St Lawrence Compound Mogul Locomotives", Railroad Gazette, Volume 24 (29 April 1892), pp. 308 -310. (Thanks to Chris Hohl for his 24 November 2023 email that included a link to the original compound version of this trio.). Works numbers wer 3686-3687 in April 1891and 3825 in June.

Among the early adopters of Pitkin's version of a cross-compound locomotive was the A&SL. In the same year as they procured these three Moguls, they bought similar 4-6-0s (Locobase 8883) and added cross-compound Consolidations (Locobase 16334) a year later.

Accorrding to locomotive superintendent James Macbeth's analysis shown in Locobase 1883, the A&SL found several good reasons to go with compounds. For one thing, the railroad ran through dense forests where compounds started some 30-40% fewer fires than did the simple-expansion engines. He added that the 4-6-0s rode very smoothly.

Even so, the class surrendered their compound setup seven years later when the New York Central converted them to simple-expansion locomotives; see Locobase 5263.

---

Class 6/E-95 (Locobase 15851)

Data from Edward L May and William D Edson, "Locomotives of the New York Central Lines" (1966), p 92. Works numbers were 955-959 in December 1887.

Of the quintet that went to this railroad, the 6 had the most complicated career. After the Z&OR declared bankruptcy, it reemerged as the Ohio & Little Kanawha and this locomotive went with it. By 1901, it was sold to the Atlanta, Knoxville & Northern as their 24. Rebuilt as a 4-6-0, the 24 changed its number to 342 when the AK&N joined the Louisville & Nashville.

The other four became the property of the Columbus, Sandusky & Hocking and were renumbered 39-40, 37-38. When the CS&H became the Zanesville & Western, the class was renumbered again as 632-633 and 630-631. Finally, when the Z&W was absorbed by the New York Central, the class received its final set of numbers.

---

Class B-4/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 Rail Data Exchange.

These Moguls first began operating on the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & Indianapolis in 1881-1882; see Locobase 15849.

As delivered, the class had a 17.9-sq ft (1.65 sq m) grate presenting 110 sq ft (10.2 sq m) 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 126 sq ft (11.7 sq m) . In addition to the increased grate area, boiler pressure climbed from 140 to 170 psi, and adhesion weight rose a substantial 10 tons (9,072 kg).

Both 6314 and 6315 were sold to locomotive rebuilder/reseller Southern Iron & Equipment on 30 August 1917. 6314 then went to the sugar plantation railway at Ferrocarril Central Limones in Matanzas Province, Cuba as their #10. 6315 also went to a sugar grower, the Central Dulce Maria in Cuba as their #1.

6321 went to SI&E on 17 May 1917 and from that broker on 3 October 1917 to the Cuba Cane Sugar Company as #2. 6338 also went to Cuba to work on the Central Reglita as their #3.

SI&E also disposed of the 6332 on 10 April 1917 to the Rome & Northern Railway in Rome, Ga as their #4 and 6329 by selling it on 15 February 1918 to the Jefferson & Northwestern in Jefferson, Texas as their #9.

Locomotive rebuilder and reseller Birmingham Rail & Locomotive sold the 6340 on 8 December 1919 to Powell Lumber Company of Lake Charles, La.

The Big Four sold the 6335 directly to the Muscatine, Burlington & Southern as their #27.

---

Class C/E-7 (Locobase 5260)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (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 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 [] (visited December 2002) It shows a smaller boiler than the RG's account, but as it is the railroad's guide, Locobase accepted that number.

---

Class Corning/Ex (Locobase 5296)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (visited December 2002). See also the website chronicling the Fall Brook Railway Company at [], last accessed 15 September 2020. Works numbers were 1578-1579 in June 1882.

Mid-80s Mogul from a predecessor railroad of the New York Central system that was headquartered in Lyons, NY. Lyons lay about halfway between Syracuse to the east and Rochester, NY. By 1890, the Fall Brook Company's railway network consisted mainly of the North-South spine between Lyons, Fall Brook, PA, and Williamsport, PA. The New York segment. In 1892, Fall Brook Railway Company included all the predecessor railroads. Seven years later, the New York Central & Hudson River leased the railway for 999 years and in 1909, bought the system, which it dubbed the Geneva, Corning & Southern.

1844 is shown as having been rebuilt in 1885.

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 E, Ea, Eb - radial-stay (Locobase 4102)

Data from New York Central & Hudson River 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (accessed December 2002), as later amended by the NYC 8 - 1917 Locomotive Diagrams book supplied in May 2005 by Allen Stanley from his extensive Rail Data Exchange.

Locobase 2624 shows the original design of this very numerous Mogul class produced delivered by three builders. Beginning in 1903, about 80% of the class was retrofitted with radial-stay boilers with four more flues and a bigger firebox.

---

Class E-1 (Locobase 15849)

Data from Edward L May and William D Edson, "Locomotives of the New York Central Lines" (1966), p 90. Grant supplied eight of the class--76-83-- in 1881 with the others all being built by the CCC&I. See also Fourteenth Annual Report of the Directors of the Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati & Indianapolis Railway Company (Cleveland, Ohio: Short & Forman, 1882).

These Moguls first began operating on the Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati & Indianapolis in 1879. Brooks delivered the first five in 1879 (works numbers 382-386).

The next three were built by the Big Four itself in 1880 (74-75) and 1881 (84). General Manager J H Devereux's report stated that the 74 cost $10,463.97 and the 84 $10,193.91 to build. Grant's eight engines cost $93,097.20 or an average of $11,637.15 each. At the time of these purchases, the CCC&I's total length of road was 471.5 miles (759 km).

Grant Locomotive Works of Paterson followed with eight more (works numbers assigned retrospectively were 1422, 1429, 4123-1428) in 1881. All of the rest of the class were built by the Big Four from 1881-1885.

---

Class E-10 (Locobase 5263)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (visited December 2002). (Thanks to Chris Hohl for his 24 November 2023 email that included a link to the original compound version of this trio; see Locobase 16658; and for highlighting the differences in weights, wheel diameter, and boiler pressure.). Works numbers were 3826 and 3686-3687.

RG's 1892 report related the postive results of a "freely" steaming cross-compound hauling 55 loaded freight cards and offered the indicator cards and a table as proof. (See Locobase 8883 for James MacBeth's endorsements.) But Macbeth's assertion that ..."There may be a little question about repairs ..." may have dampened enthusiasm for compounds to the same degree on the A&SL and New York Central as they did almost anywhere else in North America and the Central converted them to simple-expansion drag freighters in 1899.

Not only the shops swap out the large and small cylinder setup, they replace their 57" drivers with considerably smaller drivers. At the same time, the railroad reduced the boiler pressure setting to 145 psi.

They were retired in 1912-1914.

---

Class E-11 (Locobase 16283)

Data from NYC&HR 9 - 1905 Locomotive Diagrams supplied in May 2005 by Allen Stanley from his extensive Rail Data Exchange collection. See also E E R Tratman, "Tank Locomotives", Official Proceedings of the Western Railway Club (Chicago: W F Hall Printing Company, 1903), pp. 342 et seq.

Delivered in 1901-1902 as large suburban tanks (Locobase 2814), the class was initially welcomed, but the discussion below shows why they were readily converted to Moguls.

Tratman uncovered another practice that reduced the engines' effectiveness. He reports that F. M. Whyte, General Mechanical Engineer (and devisor of the Whyte classification system for locomotives used worldwide) said "...that the tank engines are satisfactory from a mechanical standpoint, but that the enginemen do not like them, preferring to run engines head first all the time on account of the dust blowing into the cab when running backward. It was found that the men were having the tank engines turned whenever possible, and also that it was just as convenient to head the engine in the direction of movement, so that this has usually been done, except at Yonkers."

Moreover, Whyte added, "The water capacity of the tanks is not sufficient tor winter requirements for the runs between New York and Croton, so that it is necessary to take water at an intermediate station. This is objectionable, and therefore regular tenders are placed behind the tank engines on both divisions, except those running to Yonkers, at which place it is not convenient to turn the engines. With the rear tanks it was necessary to make the tank short so as to keep the length of the engine within certain limits, and the height and width of tank were also limited. With the standard tender behind these engines they are more generally availabie, instead of being restricted to certain service."

The 1905 diagram notes that engines 1408-1416 and 1419 had 19" x 24" cylinders. Also, 1414-1422's had 12" (305 mm) narrower fireboxes that yielded 56.2 sq ft (5.22 sq m) in grate area and 160.2 sq ft (14.88 sq m) of firebox heating surface area.

---

Class E-17 (Locobase 15845)

Data from Baldwin Locomotive Works Specification for Engines as digitized by the DeGolyer Library of Southern Methodist University Vol 15, p. 216. Works numbers were 10639, 10642, 10648-10649, 10653 in February 1890; 10914, 10916-10917, 10924-10925 in May.

This slightly enlarged version of the Ogdensburg & Lake Champlain Moguls shown in Locobase 11881 were bought by the Central Vermont and assigned to its O&LC division. So the cabs of these engines were numbered differently from the tenders.

Out of the nine in the class, five remained with the CV throughout their forty-year careers and are shown in this entry. Originally numbered 95, 97, 98, 94, and 96, these were renumbered 324, 326, 327, 323, and 325 in 1900.

The other four would serve on the Rutland before ending their days on the New York Central & Hudson River as E-17s. See Locobase 15845 for the differences that resulted from a new boiler later in their careers.

---

Class E-3a/E-1g (Locobase 5257)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (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 [] (visited December 2002).

According to Edson, this trio was converted from three Class M 2-6-6T suburban tanks (829-830, 832) originally delivered by Schenectady in 1891 and described in Locobase 5424. The rebuilt profile shows a long cab with four windows per side. Originally renumbered 1050-1052, the class was renumbered in the 1450s.

---

Class E-65 (Locobase 7663)

Data from CCC&StL 3 -1914 Locomotive Diagrams supplied in May 2005 by Allen Stanley from his extensive Rail Data Exchange. Works numbers were 1249-1254

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 Ee (Locobase 5251)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (visited December 2002). Works numbers were 3674-3677 in January 1892, 3678-

3679

3680

3681

3682

3689

3690

3691

3692

3693

3694

3695

3696

3697

3700

3701

3702 in February

The last of the Ed built by Schenectady (see Locobases 5249-5250), these Moguls increased their tractive effort by increasing the boiler pressure.

---

Class Ef (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 five Moguls into service with Vanderbilt's corrugated firebox three years later; see Locobase 4104.

The 787 was rebuilt with a regular firebox and was redesignated E-1f; see Locobase 5252.

---

Class J-1, J-2/Ed (Locobase 5250)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (visited December 2002). See also Schenectady Locomotive Works, Illustrated Catalogue of Simple and Compound Locomotives (Philadelphia: J B Lippincott, 1897), pp. 134-135, "Letter in response to 19 in x 26 in Mogul - Brooks Locomotive Works" Railroad Gazette, Volume 22 (1 August 1890), p. 535. Works numbers were 2932-2940 in November 1889, 2941-2950 in December, 3183-3184 in August 1890, 3185-3189 in September, 3190-3196 in October, 3197-3207 in November, 3595-3604, 3620-3628 in December 1891, 3848-3854 in June 1892, 3855-3860 in July, 3861-3870 in August, 3871-3877, 3894-3905 in September, 3906-3915 in October, 3916-3928 in November.

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. The Schenectady letter to the RG objected strenuously to the account's attribution of the original design work to Brooks (Locobase 2624). After the NYC's Buchanan and Schenectady's superintendent Pitkin discussed the need for greater power, the Schenectady works built a trial engine that was "then placed in service on their road for several months before any orders were placed."

Brooks built its engines "identically the same as covered in the specifications furnished by the New York Central people," claimed the letter, which also noted that Brooks supplied only 10 of the 50-locomotive order. "In addition," the letter triumphantly concluded,"we would say we are building for the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. this year 137 locomotives, all of the freight engines being duplicates of the 'mogul' to which we above refer."

The 1621 was sold to the Wisconsin & Northern in January 1916 as their #7. Renumbered 209 when taken into the Minneapolis, St Paul & Sault Ste Marie (Soo Line) in 1921.

---

Class J-1/E-1/Ec (Locobase 5249)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (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. Works numbers were 3894-3928 in 1892.

Identical to the Ed class (Locobase 5250) except for lower drivers.

The 1686 was sold to the Wisconsin & Northern in January 1917 as their #6. Renumbered 208 when taken into the Minneapolis, St Paul & Sault Ste Marie (Soo Line) in 1921.

---

Class J-2/E-5 (Locobase 5259)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (visited December 2002). Works numbers were 1406-1408, 1410 in 1883.

Low-drivered, but relatively long-wheelbase Mogul class from the Ocean State builder.

---

Class J-2/Ef (Locobase 5252)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (visited December 2002).

This was the modification of the 787 shown in Locobase 9435, which had a Vanderbilt boiler. In the update, a more conventional boiler and firebox

---

Class J-3, J-5/E-5a, E-5b (Locobase 5258)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (visited December 2002). Works numbers were 50-51, 58 in 1883, 123 and 122 in 1886, 265-266 in 1887; and 355, 353, 354, 356 in 1888.

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 Matson (Locobase 13516)

Data from "Trial of Engines on Boston & Albany RR", Locomotive Engineers Journal, Volume X, No 12 (December 1876), p. 541. Works numbers were 619-620 in August 1873, 621-622 in September.

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 one tested--Brown--was the last of the quartet; the first three were named Matson, Allen, Morris. 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 N-6, -7, -8/E-40 (Locobase 15846)

Data from Edward L May and William D Edson, "Locomotives of the New York Central Lines" (1966), p. 88.

Brooks built forty Moguls to this basic design from 1889-1896. The diagram in the roster refers to the 1889 locomotives (works numbers 1518-1522, 1550, 1551, 1549), which were later rebuilt and redesignated E-40a.

The diagram misstates the tube heating surface area. Locobase confirmed that the total evaporative heating surface area as described was in fact the tube heating surface area when calculated.

All eight were withdrawn in 1923-1924.

---

Class O/E-81a (Locobase 11146)

Data from Schenectady Locomotive Works, Illustrated Catalogue of Simple and Compound Locomotives (Philadelphia: J B Lippincott, 1897), pp. 140-141. See also "Mogul Freight Locomotive, Michigan Central Railroad", Railroad Gazette, Volume 19 (10 June 1897), pp. 378-380. Works numbers were (in order of the original road number series) 2156-2158 in 1886, 2336-2340, 2335 in 1887, 2153, 2155, 2154 in 1886.

The original tender weighed 25,000 lb(11,340 kg) empty, carried 3,000 US gallons (11,355 litres) of water and 6 1/2 tons(7.15 tonnes) of coal.

When the MC was taken into the New York Central's numbering system in 1905, these locomotives were renumbered in the range shown in the specs. In order of their original numbers, however, the new number order was 8355-8357, 8359-8363, 8358, 8352, 8354, 8353.

Most of the class received new boilers in . Dimensions and areas remained relatively unchanged. Firebox area decreased to 127.6 sq ft (11.85 sq m) and grate area to 32.1 sq ft (3 sq m). The boiler now had 217 tubes.

As usually happened during a rebuild, weights went up--adhesion weight by 7,500 lb (3,402 kg) to 97,500 lb (44,225 kg) and engine weight to 112,000 lb (58,802 kg), a difference of 9,000 lb (4,082 kg) .

---

Class Oa, Ob/E-47 (Locobase 15848)

Data from Edward L May and William D Edson, "Locomotives of the New York Central Lines" (1966), p. 88. Brooks works numbers were 1434-1438 in October 1888 and Schenectady's works numbers ran 2815-2824 in July 1889.

The 4000-4001 were sold to Baldwin Equipment & Supply in 1911. 4000 quickly was sold to in April 1911 to O' Boyle Brothers Construction. After its work with OBBC was done, it went to work with the Lake Huron & Northern Ontario in April 1914 as their 105.

The other three of the engines were transferred in 1909 to the Michigan Central , where they were renumbered 8380-8382. All retired in September 1923.

---

Class P-1/E-1 (Locobase 4103)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (visited December 2002) and NYC&HR 9 - 1905 Locomotive Diagrams supplied in May 2005 by Allen Stanley from his extensive Rail Data Exchange . See also "A Schenectady Mogul for the New York Central", Railroad Gazette, Vol XXX, No 43. (28 October 1898), pp. 776-777. Works number was 4909 in September 1898.

The guide explains that this single locomotive was the experimental engine for the E-1A class. As such, it had the larger cylinders and higher boiler pressure, but the boiler was smaller.

This was the freight hauler that was the subject of the RG report 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 and minimum coal consumption of 4.5 lb (2 kg) per 100 ton-miles.

---

Class P-1/E-1b (Locobase 5253)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (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 P-2/E-1c (Locobase 4106)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (visited December 2002) and matches the locomotive identified as the P-2 (later "E-5") described by RG. See also DeGolyer, Volume 23, p. 20.

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 Philadelphia that the New York Central seldom patronized. The E-1ds were identical and built by the railroad's usual partner, Schenectady. One reason Baldwin may have not wanted to bid on other batches is the extensive written commentary on the specifications. Every dimension or component seems to have merited careful elaboration of the NYC's particular requirements.

1658 and 1668 were sold to the Little Falls & Dolgeville in September 1910 and March 1912 as their 3-4. In 1913, the LF&D was absorbed back in to the New York Central. The 1658 was renumbered 3900 and sold in 1916 to the Pittsburg & Shawmut as their 101. 1653 and 1687 also went to the P&S as their 102-103.

---

Class P-3, P-5/E-1d, E-1e (Locobase 5254)

Data from "New Classification of Locomotives-New York Central & Hudson River Railroad",Railroad Gazette, Vol XXXIII, No 14, (5 April 1901), p 232, an extended account of the redesignation of many of the New York Central's locomotives. E-1d works numbers were 5483-5487 in February 1900, 5488-5492 in March, 5493-5500 in June, 5501-5503 in July, 5591-5592 in October, (Two more were shop-built by Depew in 1902-1903). E-1e works numbers were 5571-5575 in August, 5576-5585 in September.

These are the E-1c Moguls as built by Schenectady. The E-1es only differed by higher weights on the drivers (136,200 lb) and total engine weight (157,100 lb).

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 P-4/E-2 (Locobase 5255)

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (visited December 2002)

This was a single compound locomotive based on the E-1d (Locobase 5254). 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 P/E-82a (Locobase 15850)

Data from Edward L May and William D Edson, "Locomotives of the New York Central Lines" (1966), p. 92. Works numbers were 5666-5673 in 1901.

These were among the biggest Moguls in the New York Central system, possessing the boiler, cylinder volume, and driver diameter to handle through freights on main lines.

---

Class R-6/F-81d (Locobase 15854)

Data from Edward L May and William D Edson, "Locomotives of the New York Central Lines" (1966), p 100. Works numbers were 3651-3660, 3815-3819, 4019-4028

The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St Louis didn't follow the works number order when they numbered this set of locomotives 442-444, 293-294, 445-447, 295-298, 448, 501-506, and 452-455. New York Central's road numbers were 8219-8220, 8130-8132, 8221-8222, 8133-8135, 8223-8226, 8136, and 8227-8236. Two of them-- --were renumbered 10 and 12 by the Chicago, Saginaw & Kalamazoo.

---

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

The data comes from a reproduction of the New York Central's 1902 Locomotive guide found on [] (visited December 2002). See also DeGolyer, Volume 22, pp. 280; "The Vanderbilt Locomotive Boiler", Railroad Gazette, Volume XXXIII [33], No. 19 ( 10 May 1901), pp. 316-317; and "Vanderbilt Locomotive and Tender: Illinois Central Railroad", Railway Engineer, Volume 22, No 8 (August 1901), pp. 239-241. Works numbers were 17637-17638 in April 1900.

Profiled in the RG account was this set of Moguls 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 (1,499 mm). 4-inch (102 mm) 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/253.8 sq m) 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. The Railway Engineering article mentioned above shows the 1901 Illinois Central Ten-wheeler displayed at the Buffalo Exposition later that year.

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 [] (visited December 2002) as having been built in 1902-1903. Another source of information -- "New Classification of Locomotives-New York Central & Hudson River Railroad",Railroad Gazette, Vol XXXIII, No 14, (5 April 1901), p 232 -- has the information as shown in the specs.