Class 115/57/565/F-4 (Locobase 6997)

Data from IC 1911 Locomotive Data and 1913a Locomotive Diagrams supplied in May 2005 by Allen Stanley from his extensive Rail Data Exchange. Works numbers were 2778, 2780-2782, 2784 in July 1881; 2811-2814, 2816, 2828-2829 in September; and 2830-2832, 2848-2852 in October.

One of the continuing pleasures for Locobase is looking at an older entry and knowing he's has so much more information at his disposal years later. Such is the case with this class. This entry originally showed just one locomotive, Illinois Central 270. But using the rosters and builders' production lists compiled by dozens of others over the many years has uncovered the nineteen other freight Ten-wheelers produced by the Paterson, NJ manufacturer for the Chesapeake & Ohio in the early 1880s.

The C&O sold six F-4s to the Chesapeake & Ohio Southwestern in 1884, two years after its formation by merging the Paducah & Elizabethtown and Memphis, Paducah and Northern. These were the 117, 126, 129-131, and 133. They took C&OSW numbers 57-62.

Three years later, Huntington's Newport News & Mississippi Valley bought these C&OSWs and renumbered them 565-570. Except for the 570, which was off the roster by 1896, all NN&MV engines rolled onto the IC roster in 1893 as 266-270.

The IC sold two in 1900. 266's new owner is not recorded; Pearl River Lumber bought the 268. The three other ICs remained in use until 1914.

Class 144 / F-2 (Locobase 12369)

Data from Baldwin Locomotive Works Specification for Engines as digitized by the DeGolyer Library of Southern Methodist University Vol 22, p. 177. Works numbers were 17132-17133 in October 1899 and 18752 in March 1901.

146, which was produced 17 months after the other pair of Ten-wheelers, had a slightly larger firebox (198 vs 191.5 sq ft). The three were among the biggest of their arrangement to come into service during this period. Their 72" drivers marked them as pure passenger engines on the Chessie's hilly profile.

They were never superheated and went to the scrapyard in the late 1920s.

Class F-10 - compound (Locobase 10741)

Data from Angus Sinclair & John A Hill, "Richmond Compound Locomotive," Railway Engineering, Volume V (May 1895), pp. 265-266. Works number was 2427.

This was a trial engine, a one-off two-cylinder compound that was tested against several other simple-expansion locomotives. Not surprisingly, given that the locomotive is mentioned at all, the reviews were very favorable: "The engine has been doing remarkably good service, and is highly popular with all the people who have anything to do with the handling of her."

One of the writers (presumably Sinclair) wrote of a recent trip and his impression of the smoothness of the engine. Had he not known it was a compound, he wouldn't have suspected, he reported: "She ran as freely as a simple engine; there was an entire absence of pounding and jarring; and working heavy or light, she performed her duties very satisfactorily."

The railroad reported significant coal and water savings as well. Like most North American railroads, however, the Chessie did not pursue two-cylinder compounds very far.

Class F-11 (Locobase 7856)

Data from C&O 9-1936 Locomotive Diagrams supplied in May 2005 by Allen Stanley from his extensive Rail Data Exchange. See also DeGolyer, Volume 24, p. 264. Works numbers were 20391, 20418, 20479-20480, 20502 in May 1902; 21329-21331 in November 1902; 21493, 21501 in January 1903; and 24113, 24136, 24159 in April 1904.

Other than having a relatively large firebox heating surface, these Ten-wheelers were of about average size for a US mixed-traffic 4-6-0 of the turn of the century. Their cylinder volume was on the small side, which meant it was likely that the boiler provided more than ample steam on starting.

The original specifications called for a firebox area of 175.5 sq ft (16.3 sq m), which is even smaller than the area given in the 1930 diagram. In any case, the smallish grate and firebox probably limited the ability of the design to run at even moderate speeds for long periods.

The CR&M soon was reorganized as the Chicago Cincinnati & Louisville (1903); the CC&L was taken over in 1910 by the Chesapeake & Ohio.

Class F-9 (Locobase 5420)

Data from table in the July 1890 issue of RREJ. See also brief note in Engineering News, Volume 23 (24 May 1890), p. 504. Works numbers were 4199 in October 1889; 4289, 4291 in April 1890, and 4527 in April 1891 (given road numbers 129, 127, 128, 126, respectively.)

The RREJ article noted that these were passenger Ten-wheelers intended for heavy grades. The "vestibule" train for which it was expressly designed had nine cars and was to be moved over the section at an average of 32 mph. This was a large 4-6-0 for its time as far as heating surface area goes. The EN report stated that the design came from Mr William Garstang, the road's Superintendent of Motive Power. The locomotives were "of the same class and design as the large one received in November last for pulling the F. F. V. Limited train over the mountain portion of the road. This has proved a success, being able to pull not only 10 of the heavy coaches and sleepers, but at the same time to supply steam for running the electric light engine in the baggage car and for heating the cars."

As usual with Railroad Journal assessments, the new design was reported to be fulfilling expectations just fine.

All of the class served the C&O for about 35 years before being scrapped in 1924.

Class T-1 / F-12 (Locobase 6461)

See the article " Hocking Valley/C&O Ten-Wheelers" by Thomas W Dixon, Jr. in the Chesapeake & Ohio Historical Magazine (June 2004), accessed on [] . See also "Heavy Power for the Hocking Valley Ry," Railway Master Mechanic, Vol 34 (December 1910), pp. 519-520.

The heating surface data comes from the RMM article; Dixon's article shows significantly higher values for the firebox.

Dixon explains that the HV needed more powerful passenger engines for their main line between Toledo and Columbus, Ohio. Although more and more railroads had adopted some form of superheating, especially for passenger locomotives, the HV's GJ De Vilbiss specified slide valves and saturated steam.

Dixon comments that, although these were relatively modestly proportioned machines, their appearance "...was excellent, a small, neat, compact, well-proportioned locomotive." He explains that the high factor of adhesion helped the trio keep a schedule that called for 9 regular and 6 flag stops in a 122-mile run that was booked for 3 hours 50 minutes. This timing included sections of 60-mph running.

In later years, the T-1s were modified with 8" piston valves and Baker valve gear. When the HV merged with the Chesapeake & Ohio in 1930, the T-1s became F-12s; within 5 years all three had been scrapped. See Locobase 6462 for the superheated T-2s that entered service two years after the T-1s.

Class T-2 / F-13 (Locobase 6462)

See the article " Hocking Valley/C&O Ten-Wheelers" by Thomas W Dixon, Jr. in the Chesapeake & Ohio Historical Magazine (June 2004).

This quartet, which were essentially superheated T-1s (Locobase 6461), was assembled from two batches: 89-90 (works # 51732-51733) came from Brooks in 1912, while 91-92 (works # 54304-54305) came from Richmond. They weighed about a ton more. Dixon doesn't comment on the difference in the firebox heating surface, which is considerable. It's possible that T-1s had arch tubes that were deleted from the T-2s to simplify maintenance.

When the HV merged with the C&O in 1930, 92 was almost immediately scrapped. The other three survived on their original turf until the late 40s when age and shrinking passenger-train demand rendered them surplus.