Who had the best mallets?

[Anonymous]

Actually the N&W utilized all the Y-4's, Y-5's and Y-6's (a & b) interchangably in mainline, local and mine service. Performance between all of them was virtually identical especially after cast engine beds and bridge pipes were installed. Many Y-3 and Y-3a's were used in the same service too.

Roger

[Anonymous]

My vote has to go to the locomotives of the railroad that moved more coal than anyother during the heyday of steam. The Chesapeake & Ohio had a sizable fleet of 2-6-6-2s in the H classes, then the H-7 2-8-8-2 and of course the ultimate steam locomotive the H-8 2-6-6-6-.
This is not intended to demini***he worth of the locomotives of the N & W and it may safely be said that between the two of them, this type of locomotive came into its own.

Additionally, one cannot overlook the Challenger type as used by the Clincfield.

Tom Blair

[Anonymous]

My vote has to go to the locomotives of the railroad that moved more coal than anyother during the heyday of steam. The Chesapeake & Ohio had a sizable fleet of 2-6-6-2s in the H classes, then the H-7 2-8-8-2 and of course the ultimate steam locomotive the H-8 2-6-6-6-.
This is not intended to demini***he worth of the locomotives of the N & W and it may safely be said that between the two of them, this type of locomotive came into its own.

Additionally, one cannot overlook the Challenger type as used by the Clincfield.

Tom Blair

[Anonymous]

Most of the SP cab forwards, the SP AC9s, all of the Challengers, the Big Boys, the Alleghenys, and the C&O H7s are not mallets. They are simple locomotives. Mallets are always compounds, but not all compounds are mallets.

[Anonymous]

Most of the SP cab forwards, the SP AC9s, all of the Challengers, the Big Boys, the Alleghenys, and the C&O H7s are not mallets. They are simple locomotives. Mallets are always compounds, but not all compounds are mallets.

[Anonymous]

Not a mallet freak.

[Anonymous]

Not a mallet freak.

[amannlines]

Northern Pacific's well proportioned Challengers, especially Z-8's, found no challenger!

[amannlines]

Northern Pacific's well proportioned Challengers, especially Z-8's, found no challenger!

[AggroJones]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Its not "who had the prettiest" or "who had the best photos taken" or "which had my personal favorite", it "who had the best!"

Who had the best overall best fleet of mallets was N&W. But cosmeticly, UP wins. The Bullmoose, Challenger, Bigboys, and USRA 2-8-8-2 are all beautiful. [:)]

[AggroJones]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Its not "who had the prettiest" or "who had the best photos taken" or "which had my personal favorite", it "who had the best!"

Who had the best overall best fleet of mallets was N&W. But cosmeticly, UP wins. The Bullmoose, Challenger, Bigboys, and USRA 2-8-8-2 are all beautiful. [:)]

[ValorStorm]

How did the C&O get left off the list? And how did my hair suddenly disappear circa 1981?

[ValorStorm]

How did the C&O get left off the list? And how did my hair suddenly disappear circa 1981?

[Anonymous]

The B&O's EM-1.....simple articulated and bought because of the war time restrictions on buying diesels, however the engines had photogenic lines and were among the last steam engines to operate on the B&O, hauling coal between Holloway, OH and Cleveland and Lorain and between New Castle, PA and Fairport Harbor, OH.

[Anonymous]

The B&O's EM-1.....simple articulated and bought because of the war time restrictions on buying diesels, however the engines had photogenic lines and were among the last steam engines to operate on the B&O, hauling coal between Holloway, OH and Cleveland and Lorain and between New Castle, PA and Fairport Harbor, OH.

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Yes, that though was after they had been sold to the Sumpter Valley RR in northern California, where they had there water tanks removed and were converted to tender locomotives. Altered from their original design they were not very successful, old timers said it was due to the loss of the water tanks reducing the locos weight on the rails hence its tractive force. In Central America they were further hampered by the humid wet conditions, where once they could climb 7% grades in snow covered mountains, bereft of their tanks they could barely make the 3% or 4% grades down there. Once they were removed from service some train buffs tried to raise money to bring one back to the US baut they couldnt raise the needed money. Too bad, Imagine if they had and one was still operational, say on the Durango & SIlverton route or Cumbres & Toltec?

The Sumter Valley was in Oregon, not Northern California.Otherwise this is an interesting post.Suppose the engines had been left in thier original configuration.They would have been much more successful,and undoubtedly would have lasted longer.Maybe long enough to have been preserved?

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Yes, that though was after they had been sold to the Sumpter Valley RR in northern California, where they had there water tanks removed and were converted to tender locomotives. Altered from their original design they were not very successful, old timers said it was due to the loss of the water tanks reducing the locos weight on the rails hence its tractive force. In Central America they were further hampered by the humid wet conditions, where once they could climb 7% grades in snow covered mountains, bereft of their tanks they could barely make the 3% or 4% grades down there. Once they were removed from service some train buffs tried to raise money to bring one back to the US baut they couldnt raise the needed money. Too bad, Imagine if they had and one was still operational, say on the Durango & SIlverton route or Cumbres & Toltec?

The Sumter Valley was in Oregon, not Northern California.Otherwise this is an interesting post.Suppose the engines had been left in thier original configuration.They would have been much more successful,and undoubtedly would have lasted longer.Maybe long enough to have been preserved?

[twhite]

If you mean simple articulated, rather than Mallet compound, I'd have to go with the Missabe Road M-3/4 2-8-8-4's from Baldwin. With over 142,000 lbs TE, they were heavier than Big Boy and as I understand, could out-haul the Alco behemoth. And they were not just used for hauling ore trains in Minnesota. During WWII, when the Lakes were frozen, both NP and Rio Grande borrowed them and Rio Grande reported that they were the finest locomotives to ever run on the road. And for looks and line, few locomotives could beat them for sheer mechanical beauty.
Of course, if we're talking JUST Mallets, N&W wins hands down, though I wouldn't scoff at the handsome USRA-clone 2-8-8-2's in the 3500 series of the Rio Grande.
Tom

[twhite]

If you mean simple articulated, rather than Mallet compound, I'd have to go with the Missabe Road M-3/4 2-8-8-4's from Baldwin. With over 142,000 lbs TE, they were heavier than Big Boy and as I understand, could out-haul the Alco behemoth. And they were not just used for hauling ore trains in Minnesota. During WWII, when the Lakes were frozen, both NP and Rio Grande borrowed them and Rio Grande reported that they were the finest locomotives to ever run on the road. And for looks and line, few locomotives could beat them for sheer mechanical beauty.
Of course, if we're talking JUST Mallets, N&W wins hands down, though I wouldn't scoff at the handsome USRA-clone 2-8-8-2's in the 3500 series of the Rio Grande.
Tom