Hi all!
Just wondering, was it more common for Santa Fe to double head 2-10-2s or 2-8-2s?
(Just wondering if I were to buy 3 engines, which one I should get two of...)
Thanks!
Charles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the PRR & NYC in HO
Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/@trainman440
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
This ought to stir your juices!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q02iS15rNb4
Get a pair of 2-10-2 locos and one 2-8-2.
Rich
Alton Junction
You should never say never in the rails world, but....
...doubling 2-10-4 steamers would have been quite rare. Those beasts had traffic efforts close to what a UP Challenger could do. (Mind you, an old timey Pennsy Hippo had more tractive effort than the modern beefcakes known as the J1.) The chances of seeing other combinations would be close to twice that of doubled Texas types, and maybe considerably more, depending on the road and its traffic.
selector You should never say never in the rails world, but.... ...doubling 2-10-4 steamers would have been quite rare. Those beasts had traffic efforts close to what a UP Challenger could do. (Mind you, an old timey Pennsy Hippo had more tractive effort than the modern beefcakes known as the J1.) The chances of seeing other combinations would be close to twice that of doubled Texas types, and maybe considerably more, depending on the road and its traffic.
I cannot comment on the operating practices of the AT&SF, it is outside my knowledge base.......
But, here in the Mid Atlantic, on the B&O lines west from Baltimore, the typical 3,500 ton freight train (aprox 70 cars) required double headed 2-8-8-0's (or sometimes the even larger EM-1 2-8-8-4) to cross the toughest grades across the Appalachian Mountains.
And the steepest grade often required two more as pushers........
A B&O EL5 2-8-8-0 produced 113,000 lbs of tractive effort, somewhat more than the the 85,000 lbs of the AT&SF 3800 class 2-10-2.
So, 453,000 lbs of tractive force to move 3500 tons over the curvy 2.3% Cranberry grade.
The double heading of very large steam locomotives was very common in Appalachia, and I suspect in other mountain regions as well.
I have lots of pictures, but unfortunately they are not in digital form........
Again, I don't know the details of AT&SF operations, what size trains they prefered, what their grades and other operational conditions were, so I can't confirm or deny how they used their motive power regarding double heading.
Sheldon
PS - I had no trouble with a quick search finding historic pictures of UP Big Boys double headed on Sherman Hill........
At the Raton Pass, where double-heading was the rule, the helpers (ahead of the "regular" locomotive) usually were 2-10-2s, often of the smaller 900/1600 class. This is how these locos, although quite ancient, survived until the end of the steam era. Division Point produced beautiful (and expensive) brass models of the 900/1600 class.
By far less common, but regularly seen as helpers at the Raton Pass in the mid-1940s were some 2-8-8-2s obtained from the NW (NW class Y-3, ATSF class 1790). After the end of steam, the helper duties were delegated to a pair of six-axle ALCO RSD-4/5.
Agreed, Sheldon, and there's still that 'Pillars of Smoke in the Sky' video on youtube showing three Y6 engines on the Blue Ridge, two at the head end and one shoving from the rear. The roads did what they had to do on the day to meet customers' requirements. It's whatever had to work. More often than not, though, it would have been 2-10-2's doubled and on down if one counted at roadside for a week.
On the SF, steamers like the 2-10-4 and 2-10-2 were sometimes used as helpers, assisting the blue/yellow F units or the warbonnet red/silver F's in New Mexico on Raton Pass. This occured in the mid-late 50's.
There is a picture of PRR J1 and an ATSF 2-10-4 doubled headed on the Sandusky line from Columbus on a ore drag. (Pennsy Power I) The ATSF 2-10-4's were leased by the PRR in the summer of 1956 due to a motive power shortage.
Selector, by the way the I1 did have more tractive effort than the J but due to the large firebox supported by the 4 wheel trailing truck, the J had more steam to haul a similar load at speed rather than the 50 mph maximum allowed to the I1's.
Rick Jesionowski
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!