Big 0-6-0's

[ROBERT WILLISON]

Firelock76

I get what your saying RME, but it still looks "cartoony."

I'd expect to Daffy or Bugs in the cab.

 

. And for fire lock, that's all folks 

[ACY Tom]

Maybe I should have been more specific. I was referring to the 0-6-0 that was cited above. I know the only surviving Union type loco is on display in Greenville. Last I heard, she was displayed in her last livery of the DM&IR, which seems somewhat out of place in her native Pennsylvania. She and 0-6-0 number 77 are the only surviving Union Railroad steam locos.

Tom   

[MidlandMike]

ACY

The Union engine is long gone,  ...

If by that you mean the URR "Union" type engines (0-10-2) are gone, then you should visit the Greenville PA rail museum, where URR 304 (retired as B&LE 604) is on display.

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/Locopicture.aspx?id=112794

http://www.greenvilletrainmuseum.org/displays.aspx

 

[ACY Tom]

RME

 

Aren't the A&BB locomotives little different from PRR design?

(56", 22x28, 47,100 TE not to be sneezed at, though...)

 

Before the A&BB engines, PRR's last order for 0-6-0's was a group of 60 B6sb's delivered by Juniata Shops in 1926 to a design that essentially had its roots in the B6 of 1910. They were the heaviest PRR 0-6-0's, but were lighter and smaller than the A&BB engines. That last group of B6sb's had 22x24" cylinders, 56" drivers, 205# boiler pressure, 180,300 pounds weight, and 36,144 pounds tractive effort. 

As mentioned, the later A&BB engines were designed with PRR influence and built by Baldwin in 1929 and/or 1930 (sources differ). The formal delivery date was 1930, but most of the construction was probably in 1929. Comparable figures for them were 22x28" cylinders, 56" drivers, 250# boiler pressure, 198,380 pounds weight, and 47,300 pounds tractive effort. In addition to their square road tenders carrying 12 tons of coal and 9,000 gallons of water, they had very non-Pennsy Chambers Front End Throttles and large un-Pennsy sandboxes. The larger cylinders, higher boiler pressure, and greater size and power set them apart. The cylinders had a 4" longer stroke; the boiler pressure was 45# higher, the weight was 18,080 pounds greater, and the calculated tractive effort was 11,156 pounds greater.

Tom 

[Miningman]

Top notch information ACY...thanks for this.

[ACY Tom]

The Union engine is long gone, but one of her sister 0-6-0's survives. This is Union number 77, built by Alco at the very late date of 1944. From pictures, she seems to be a pretty close copy of the Limas, although I haven't found actual dimensional data.  Union had already begun to buy diesels before 1944, and I'm guessing the engine was built because Wartime restrictions prevented Union from getting the diesels they really wanted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any other 0-6-0's being built for domestic commercial use at that late date.

Number 77 was sold to the Morehead & North Fork, becoming their number 14, and worked there until the 1960's with 2-6-2 11 and 0-6-0 12. She is now located at Stearns, KY, and is intended to operate an excursion train on the former K&T. I personally wonder whether a lighter engine might be more practical for the trackage, but that's not really for me to say. I wish the group well.

I wonder if 77 is the heaviest and newest 0-6-0 in preservation. Could be.

As for A&BB'S 0-6-0's, numbers 15-18 were ordered just before the Depression, and completed just in time for a major drop in A&BB's business. The four engines were delivered, but numbers 16 and 17 immediately went into storage for several years because A&BB wasn't required to pay for them until they actually went into service. Baldwin wasn't happy about that. 

Numbers 15 and 18 did enter service right away, and A&BB began to scrap some old Baldwin 2-6-0's. By the end of the 1930's, as war clouds gathered, the four 0-6-0's all received brakeman's doghouses and were all in service as heavy switchers and "road" engines on the A&BB's line of about 13 miles between the AC&Y iterchange in Akron, the industrial areas around Firestone in South Akron, the line's headquarters in Barberton, and the many industrial customers in Barberton.  Mogul 7 was the last of the Belt's 2-6-0's, and is said to have lasted through WWII. The engines were never turned, always facing towards the home terminal in Barberton. The Belt's first diesel, Baldwin VO660 number 25, arrived in March of 1942.

During the War, the A&BB got under the skin of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) because they retired all of their old PRR N6a and N6b cabooses. From what we have gathered, it appears that the Conductor was required to ride the tender. The doghouse seems to be the only place where he could tend to his paperwork! There has been some speculation that the road might have occasionally borrowed cabooses during this period, but there is no record, and in any case the PUCO ordered them to resume the use of cabooses shortly after the war. They borrowed two PRR N6b's in early 1947 and bought them shortly thereafter, simply numbering them 1 and 2 with no road name applied.  

Beginning in 1948, more Baldwin diesels arrived, and steam was retired shortly after Baldwin S-12 28 was delivered in July, 1952.  The last A&BB steam engine was 0-6-0 number 15, sold for scrap in 1955.   

 

Tom  

[RME]

190 was built the same year as the first of the Union types, which were MUCH larger locomotives.  This leads me to suspect that Union needed something very capable but 'bendable' enough to get into sharper curves or tighter places while maintaining the very large "industrial" air-brake capacity for long cuts of transfer cars.  So we have six of these Limas for the ... I guess 'lighter' work is not the right semantics ...

I think I am indeed wrong on the 'auxiliary locomotives' -- 190 and sisters probably had Franklin Reversible Boosters like the 0-10-2s.  (I think the arrangement of the booster steam pipes substantiates this.)

These locomotives are not for 'kicking cars' as much as they're for sustained pulling between yards the Union served.  "Reversible" apparently doesn't mean you can engage the booster to drive in reverse, just that you can run it backward to get the gears to disengage more easily if jammed or wedged.

[Miningman]

Thanks RME...what a beast. The piping and double domes, in addition to the double air pumps as mentioned, add to the look of sheer power. 

Great shot of the auxiliary as well, shows it very well, not something easily discernible in many cases, but sure is in this example. 

Date is 1950 and the stack is capped. Does not bode well for it's future. The rest of the locomotive looks ok though, not stripped or cannibilized. 

All of these big 0-6-0's must have had quite a bark to them as they kicked and hauled cars around. 

[Penny Trains]

The first thing I thought of when I looked at the URR pic was "Chessie".  And that was just based on the high, small headlight and the celestory on the tender.  But the tank on the pilot deck makes me think Pennsy.

[RME]

Miningman

Can anyone come up with a picture of Union RR Lima built monsters

Here is a picture of Union 190, Lima 1936 (which I think is perhaps the most 'advanced' 0-6-0 they had.

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4355939

Note that visually it is nowhere near as "impressively sized" as the Reading engine ... but when you look at the details, like the double pumps and Bethlehem auxiliary locomotive, you have a design optimized for working tractive effort in transfer service (the updated version of this power being the famous 0-10-2s).  At low speed this is the equivalent of an articulated ten-coupled, and the issue of 'waddle' in the auxiliary locomotive is relatively small at the likely speeds a locomotive with no guide truck would reach...

Aren't the A&BB locomotives little different from PRR design?

(56", 22x28, 47,100 TE not to be sneezed at, though...)

[ACY Tom]

Miningman

Can anyone come up with a picture of Union RR Lima built monsters or Akron and Barberton #15-18 Baldwin built '29 and '30. 

 

They are in the 1941 Loco Cyclopedia.

Tom

[RME]

Penny Trains

For that Katrinka would have to be carrying it with one arm.

Even she might need to use two for that Reading engine...

[Miningman]

That 1904 Baldwin is BIG by any standard, those guys are dwarfed by the boiler!. CNJ 113 is a BEAST! Not Toonerville. 

Can anyone come up with a picture of Union RR Lima built monsters or Akron and Barberton #15-18 Baldwin built '29 and '30. 

[Penny Trains]

RME

adds a bit to the Toonerville affect.

For that Katrinka would have to be carrying it with one arm. 

[RME]

Firelock76

I get what you're saying, RME, but it still looks "cartoony."  I'd expect to see Daffy or Bugs in the cab.

I think it is more 'cartoony' in the sense that a Dodge Viper is a cartoon parody of a Cobra, a bit like Jessica Rabbit to Veronica Lake.  Nobody laughs at the Viper for too long (until it rains suddenly in Palm Springs, but that's another story altogether!).

A good example of the 'reverse' problem is the new Mercedes S-class convertible, which from any distance looks like a fat and somewhat misproportioned C-class car -- not at ALL what the Mercedes people (or the likely clientele for the things) intended.  When you're standing next to one, you appreciate the size, but from far away all you see are the (mis)proportions, as with the Reading locomotive.

It doesn't help that even very large 0-6-0s are not really huge locomotives, so the engineer leaning out of the cab adds a bit to the Toonerville affect.

[Firelock76]

I get what your saying RME, but it still looks "cartoony."

I'd expect to Daffy or Bugs in the cab.

[RME]

Firelock76

Gee, I don't know. That big boiler, big valve and cylinder housing, even bigger firebox, and those itty-bitty drivers make it look, for lack of a better term, a bit "cartoony?"

Itty-bitty?   To put this in context, those drivers are one little inch smaller than those on an N&W M-class 4-8-0 ... and two inches smaller than the as-built drivers on the Y-class engines.  It's that the rest of the engine is so much bigger that they look small, like the 63" drivers on the A2a Berkshire when you're expecting Niagara.  I suspect that a switch engine would be given the culmiest of culm to burn, so a large grate area and comparatively long radiant-section gas path would be appropriate... if it has to "pass" for something it is likelier a T1 4-8-4's younger cousin than a typical 'shunting engine' or something out of the shame pages of The Little Engine That Could.

[Firelock76]

gregc

while not the largest mentioned, the Reading 0-6-0 is probably similar to the CNJ mentioned before.

175250 lbs on 55" drivers producing 41967 lbs TE

 

Gee, I don't know.  That big boiler, big valve and cylinder housing, even bigger firebox, and those itty-bitty drivers make it look, for lack of a better term, a bit "cartoony?"

It could pass for Thomas the Tank Engine's American cousin!

CNJ 113 is a LOT better lookin' in my opinion.

[Penny Trains]

I like that one!  A true no-nonsense work horse! 

[gregc]

while not the largest mentioned, the Reading 0-6-0 is probably similar to the CNJ mentioned before.

175250 lbs on 55" drivers producing 41967 lbs TE

[Miningman]

61,000 lbs te for an 0-6-0- holy Mackinaw.

Anyone out there have a picture. 

Also thanks to ACY

[timz]

IC claimed 61000 lb tractive effort for one 0-6-0. 52 inch drivers, cyl 25 x 26, pressure 230 psi.

[ACY Tom]

That's certainly an impressive loco. I don't know whether larger 0-6-0's were being built in 1904, but there certainly were larger ones that came along later. I went through the 1930, 1941, and 1947 Locomotive Cyclopedias and found these two big guys:

Biggest of the two was Union's 0-6-0's, built by Lima in 1930-37. The builder's photo shows number 187. They weighed 201,400 pounds on 51" drivers. The locomotive produced a tractive effort of 49,690 pounds, but a booster added another 14.500 pounds tractive effort, for a very impressive total of 64,190 pounds.   

Akron & Barberton Belt's numbers 15-18 were built by Baldwin in 1929 and delivered in 1930. They weighed 198,380 pounds on 56" drivers, and put out 47,200 pounds tractive effort. In comparison with the Union engines, this was very impressive when one considers the larger drivers of the A&BB engines. This was likely due to the higher 250 pounds boiler pressure, as compared to 220 pounds for the Union engines. Incidentally, the photos show a decided PRR influence, and some have suggested these were ex PRR locomotives, but that is not true. They were all new engines, designed with significant input from PRR, who had a very active role in A&BB's affairs at the time. The Chambers Front End throttles were a significant departure from PRR practice.

Tom

[Penny Trains]

That's an eye opener and no mistake! 

[Miningman]

Pajrr- Very nice, so we have gone from 39,000 lbs tractice effort ( 1904 however!)  to 46,000 lbs ....is there a larger 0-6-0 ? Let's stick with 0-6-0's , not delve into 0-8-0's or 0-10-0's.

[pajrr]

Check out CNJ 113. Not only is the engine large, but since the CNJ used anthracite coal the firebox is huge, the entire width of the locomotive rather than jammed between the drivers like your example.   http://www.railpictures.net/photo/612324/

[Miningman]

We talk and admire a lot about modern steam, the Superpower era, massive articulated locomotives, big modern power on Pennsy, NYC, Santa Fe and so on. What about the lowly 0-6-0 switcher. Check out this monster. Old too! I'm sure there are even bigger.

The Canadian Copper Co. 1, Baldwin Locomotive Works #23801 4/1904 INCO 

Baldwin Locomotive Works provided the five new steam locomotives. These were powerful 80 ton 0-6-0's with 39,000 lbs. of tractive effort, much bigger than typical switch engines used in Canada. (CPR's 0-6-0's of the time had only 27,000 t.e.) 

The massive size of the Baldwin switch engines is evident in this photograph. INCO 

Now that is a big boiler.