(If this info has already been discussed someplace, pointers to that other info will be fine)
I'm wanting to track down some information on PRR 2-8-8-2 power. I am aware they had a model from Alco back in the early 1900's (like 1911 or something). I am interested in later years-- I know they leased several Y-3's from the N&W....
Here's my first question:
Is there any known instance where (A) the Pennsylvania Railroad ran Y6B's (on their own trackage) and (B) under their own livery (i.e. PRR herald) ???
Here's my second question:
What are the principle spotting differences in the Y3 and the Y6B?
For instance I know the cylinders on the Y3 are small-over-large versus the Y6B which are big-over-big. Apparently the Y6B had a compound arrangement.
What else?
Thanks in advance for any / all info !
John
The Y3 and Y6b had identical sized cylinders. However, the Y3 had a 270 PSI boiler pressure whereas the Y6 variants had a 300 PSI boiler pressure.
Here's a link to specs for all N&W 2-8-8-2's: http://www.steamlocomotive.com/articulated/nwy.shtml
Both engines were essentially USRA 2-8-8-2's (IIRC the Y3's were USRA originals that were also modernized in the 20's) with the Y6b being the ultimate example of taking a good design and improving it to the nth degree. The Y4's and Y5's were interim steps in the improvement of the original USRA design.
There are pics of Y3 and Y6 engines here: http://www.retroweb.com/nwsteam.html That ought to give you some idea of the differences. However, the Y6 had a somewhat different appearance from the Y6b as the Y6b used Worthington type SA feedwater heater (IIRC) while the Y6 in the pic has a Worthington type BL feedwater heater.
Here's a Walthers ad for the Y3 which should give a good visual of the Y3. http://www.walthers.com/page/ads/n_y3_2882.pdf
Here's a pic of a Y6b. The differences between the Y3 and Y6b should be pretty obvious. One thing that's not apparent is the forward cant of the smokestack; http://www.toytrains1.com/images/trains/2197.jpg
Hope this helps.
Andre
------------------------------
PRR had a 2-8-8-2 class HH1s( #373-378) these was ex N&W Y3s...I don't think PRR had any exN&W Y6Bs.You see and if memory serves the Y6B wasn't built till 1948.
http://prrsteam.pennsyrr.com/images/prr378.jpg
PRR controlled the N&W so, there's a possibility a N&W Y6B could been ran on the PRR between Columbus and Sandusky in the 50s..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
andrechapelonWhat are the principle spotting differences in the Y3 and the Y6B? For instance I know the cylinders on the Y3 are small-over-large versus the Y6B which are big-over-big. Apparently the Y6B had a compound arrangement. The Y3 and Y6b had identical sized cylinders. However, the Y3 had a 270 PSI boiler pressure whereas the Y6 variants had a 300 PSI boiler pressure. Here's a link to specs for all N&W 2-8-8-2's: http://www.steamlocomotive.com/articulated/nwy.shtml Both engines were essentially USRA 2-8-8-2's (IIRC the Y3's were USRA originals that were also modernized in the 20's) with the Y6b being the ultimate example of taking a good design and improving it to the nth degree. The Y4's and Y5's were interim steps in the improvement of the original USRA design. There are pics of Y3 and Y6 engines here: http://www.retroweb.com/nwsteam.html That ought to give you some idea of the differences. However, the Y6 had a somewhat different appearance from the Y6b as the Y6b used Worthington type SA feedwater heater (IIRC) while the Y6 in the pic has a Worthington type BL feedwater heater. Here's a Walthers ad for the Y3 which should give a good visual of the Y3. http://www.walthers.com/page/ads/n_y3_2882.pdf Here's a pic of a Y6b. The differences between the Y3 and Y6b should be pretty obvious. One thing that's not apparent is the forward cant of the smokestack; http://www.toytrains1.com/images/trains/2197.jpg Hope this helps. Andre
I must have been looking at a mis-labeled photo then. Thanks for the correction.
And thank you for the links to the info too, much appreciated.
It should also be noted that the Y6b in its final form and as typically modeled has a tender that is unique to the N&W. Earlier versions has various tenders that are more "typical" of tenders on other railroads.
It should also be noted that the PRR did not like the Y3 and did not like articulated locos in general.
With their very heavily built mainline and mostly easy curves, articulated locos posed no operational advantages for them.
Roads like the N&W, C&O, B&O, and WM had lots of sharp/moderate curves and steep grades where the advantages of articulateds outway any additional maintenance considerations. Compaired to a rigid loco of similar TE, most articulated locos can maintain higher speeds in sharper curves and loose less TE in those curves. Same is true of the vertical curves associated with grades.
Sheldon
BRAKIE if memory serves the Y6B wasn't built till 1948.
if memory serves the Y6B wasn't built till 1948.
I read somewhere that 30 Y6Bs were built from 1948 to 1952. ... Also, that the first 2-8-8-2 locomotives were built for the Southern Pacific (class MC-1) in 1909. Built with cab in year (no, I mean cab in rear), the two locomotives of this class were quickly modified into cabforwards (MC-2). Later that year, the SP received 15 more MC-2 cabforwards from Baldwin.
Thanks again for your info-- I stumbled upon another interesting site talking about AHM locos in specific and they had this to say:
(AHM Site: http://railroad.union.rpi.edu/article.php?article=2585)
5092 N&W 2-8-8-2 Mallet - Based on a specific N&W class of locos, which in turn were copies of the USRA standard design of the same wheel arrangement. The N&W Y-class of locos date back to the original USRA locos and over time they got a total of 191 of these. The model is of the last class, the Y6b, built from 1948 until '52, nos. 2170-2200. The model scales out to be 116 feet long. [Original USRA Mallet, 1922 Loco Cyc.] [N&W 2171, Y6b, home-built in '48. Drivers 58 inches in diameter.] [Comparison of the USRA and Y6b.] [Model photo, courtesy Wm.K. Walthers.] According to Steve Orth (Dec. 2005 Railmodel Journal), the N&W, Virginian, and Clinchfield got the original engines. After WWI, clones were acquired by the D&RGW and NP. AHM also offered this model decorated for the PRR (model no. 5090) and ATSF (model no. 5091). The Pennsy and Santa Fe got original USRA Mallets from the N&W. Perhaps the biggest difference between a USRA Mallet and the Y6b/this model is the cab. The USRA loco had a pretty standard looking style cab, while this version had a shorter slanted-front cab. If you were desperate, you could backdate this model by substituting a cab from the USRA Pacific or Mikado. The tender, too, is more modern looking and using a USRA tender, the so-called long version, would help.
5092 N&W 2-8-8-2 Mallet - Based on a specific N&W class of locos, which in turn were copies of the USRA standard design of the same wheel arrangement. The N&W Y-class of locos date back to the original USRA locos and over time they got a total of 191 of these. The model is of the last class, the Y6b, built from 1948 until '52, nos. 2170-2200. The model scales out to be 116 feet long.
BRAKIEHere's my first question: Is there any known instance where (A) the Pennsylvania Railroad ran Y6B's (on their own trackage) and (B) under their own livery (i.e. PRR herald) ??? ------------------------------ PRR had a 2-8-8-2 class HH1s( #373-378) these was ex N&W Y3s...I don't think PRR had any exN&W Y6Bs.You see and if memory serves the Y6B wasn't built till 1948. http://prrsteam.pennsyrr.com/images/prr378.jpg PRR controlled the N&W so, there's a possibility a N&W Y6B could been ran on the PRR between Columbus and Sandusky in the 50s..
That's one of the better pictures I've seen so far-- thanks.
ATLANTIC CENTRALIt should also be noted that the Y6b in its final form and as typically modeled has a tender that is unique to the N&W. Earlier versions has various tenders that are more "typical" of tenders on other railroads. It should also be noted that the PRR did not like the Y3 and did not like articulated locos in general. With their very heavily built mainline and mostly easy curves, articulated locos posed no operational advantages for them. Roads like the N&W, C&O, B&O, and WM had lots of sharp/moderate curves and steep grades where the advantages of articulateds outway any additional maintenance considerations. Compaired to a rigid loco of similar TE, most articulated locos can maintain higher speeds in sharper curves and loose less TE in those curves. Same is true of the vertical curves associated with grades. Sheldon
While I didn't know that specifically (thanks), the South Pennsylvania Railroad, the pseudo-fictional road I'm modeling with heavy PRR influence, will have more sharp and moderate curves than the PRR proper would. So it might actually be a good selection then..?
jwhittenWhile I didn't know that specifically (thanks), the South Pennsylvania Railroad, the pseudo-fictional road I'm modeling with heavy PRR influence, will have more sharp and moderate curves than the PRR proper would. So it might actually be a good selection then..?
Yes, it sure would! That's the great thing about freelancing and protolancing - it's your railroad!
Here on the ATLANTIC CENTRAL we love articulated power. Especially the shorter wheelbase variaties, 2-6-6-2's, 2-6-6-4's, 2-6-6-6's, and we do have a couple of Y3 equals. Non articulated power is limited to driver wheel bases of less than 20'. So the biggest are Reading T-1 Northerns and we have no locos with five coupled drivers.
A couple of points that might need clarifying:
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with one 16-drivered catenary motor)
The PRR received 6 Y3 locomotives and used one for parts to keep the others in service. They were mostly used for pushers on the hump in Columbus and sometimes a transfer run from yard to yard. #373 was cannibalized for parts.
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr373s.jpg
The rest did a good job at what they were assigned to do. The Pco. did not like to have too much heave hoe on the front. The first articulated tested out of Altoona was HH1 #3396 had so much heave it pulled a few couplers out of the train it was pulling. In 1919 they received a few from Alco (HC1s) and Baldwin (CC2) for pusher and hump service. They seemed to like the 0-8-8-0 better than the 2-8-8-0. Why they were not put on the big hill around the curve is a mystery to me. Perhaps there was not a convenient way to turn them. At least the N&W locos did not travel far from where they came from.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
tomikawaTT A couple of points that might need clarifying: The Y-3 wasn't a copy of the USRA 2-8-8-2. The USRA adopted the N&W design as standard. Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with one 16-drivered catenary motor)
Sorry Chuck, but this is incorrect.
If you read Uncle Sam's Locomotives, you will learn that N&W officials who showed up at the meetings for what would become the USRA brought with them the plans for the N&W Class Y-2A 2-8-8-2.
The USRA committee made minor revisions to those plans that resulted in the USRA 2-8-8-2, and promptly allocated N&W 50 such engines, which became their class Y-3. They were delivered new with USRA tenders (later replaced by larger N&W tenders), and the huge Worthington BL feedwater heaters so common in Y-3 class photos were not added to the left side until rebuilding during the 1930's. As delivered, they looked like all other USRA 2-8-8-2's--because that's what they were.
The Y-3A's were virtual clone copies, after WWI.
Respectfully submitted--
locoi1sa The PRR received 6 Y3 locomotives and used one for parts to keep the others in service. They were mostly used for pushers on the hump in Columbus and sometimes a transfer run from yard to yard. #373 was cannibalized for parts. http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr373s.jpg The rest did a good job at what they were assigned to do. The Pco. did not like to have too much heave hoe on the front. The first articulated tested out of Altoona was HH1 #3396 had so much heave it pulled a few couplers out of the train it was pulling. In 1919 they received a few from Alco (HC1s) and Baldwin (CC2) for pusher and hump service. They seemed to like the 0-8-8-0 better than the 2-8-8-0. Why they were not put on the big hill around the curve is a mystery to me. Perhaps there was not a convenient way to turn them. At least the N&W locos did not travel far from where they came from. Pete
Pete--
Please check your facts.
Class HH-1 was the 6 ex-N&W Class Y-3's, which didn't arrive till late in WWII.
The first Pennsy 2-8-8-0 was Class HC-1, road number 3700, and it did have at least 147,000 pounds of tractive effort (simple), which in 1919 was more than many drawbars could withstand. It had a huge Belpaire boiler, and NJ International/Custom Brass imported a well-known brass model of this engine. Some have suggested the PRR 2-8-8-0 was simply ahead of its time--had they been a bit more patient, it or perhaps its offspring could have been worthy mountain-tamers--had it been given a real chance and been built a few years later when drawbars were stronger.
That single 2-8-8-0 was in fact assigned to helper service over Allegheny Mountain, where it performed well enough and had a decent career of 10 years--not bad for a "one-off" on a railroad that had decided they hated articulateds.
The CC Class 0-8-8-0's apparently faired pretty well--at least one was still in service as late as 1940.
My one landlord here near Harrisburg, PA, Jack Keister, actually operated the HH-1 2-8-8-2's in heavy transfer service between Harrisburg and Cumberland, Maryland. (He's been dead more than a decade now).
They were also used near Columbus, Ohio, in heavy transfer service.
The PRR men hated them, at least in part because they were slow, and likely also because they were very well worn engines--but they were nearly all that was available at the time, and PRR was desperate for power--so they took them.
Thank you for the correction. I should have re read before sending. I meant HC1 instead of HH1.
Next time I will re read.
Around 1980 NJ International, which imported brass locomotives at the time, brought out a soft cover book "USRA 2-8-8-2 Series:" as part of their Classic Power series of books. The text is by Thomas Dressler, an N&W authority. He writes that the USRA engine was based on the Y-2a.
There is discussion of the Y-3s that went to the UP, ATSF, etc. The Santa Fe actually considered using the boilers to make a 3751 class 4-8-4.
As for the Pennsy they were during WWII a part owner of the N&W and received 6 Y3s. At first they worked the hump and transfer service at Enola and then went to Columbus for transfer service to N&W's Joyce Yard. He writes that the Pennsy installed Keystone number plates, PRR classification lights, and Pennsylvania lettering on the tenders. Purchased 1943; scrapped 1948. PRR 373 was ex N&W 2000, ex VGN 900 -- the first USRA 2-88-2.
The others were 374 (2008); 375 (2027); 376 (2034); 377 (2036); 378 (2046; and the only Baldwin in an otherwise all Alco bunch).
For a time Bowser offered a brass tender of the sort used on these engines.
Dave Nelson
UP 4-12-2 Pete-- Please check your facts. Class HH-1 was the 6 ex-N&W Class Y-3's, which didn't arrive till late in WWII.
You, Sir, are technically correct but you too might check your facts; the original 2-8-8-2 built by Schenectady in 1911 were designated Class HH1s--I seem to recall reading someplace that PRR added the "s" as a suffix to the Class designation to indicate a unit that received post-production superheating but whether or not that is the significance in this case for that suffix or not I cannot be sure. According to Kalmbach's Guide to North American Steam Locomotives: History and development of steam power since 1900 that original 2-8-8-2 Class HH1/HH1s #3396 had been retired in 1928; PRR reused classification HH1 for the Y3s acquired from Norfolk and Western during Big Brawl Two.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
dknelsonAround 1980 NJ International, which imported brass locomotives at the time, brought out a soft cover book "USRA 2-8-8-2 Series:" as part of their Classic Power series of books. The text is by Thomas Dressler, an N&W authority. He writes that the USRA engine was based on the Y-2a. There is discussion of the Y-3s that went to the UP, ATSF, etc. The Santa Fe actually considered using the boilers to make a 3751 class 4-8-4. As for the Pennsy they were during WWII a part owner of the N&W and received 6 Y3s. At first they worked the hump and transfer service at Enola and then went to Columbus for transfer service to N&W's Joyce Yard. He writes that the Pennsy installed Keystone number plates, PRR classification lights, and Pennsylvania lettering on the tenders. Purchased 1943; scrapped 1948. PRR 373 was ex N&W 2000, ex VGN 900 -- the first USRA 2-88-2. The others were 374 (2008); 375 (2027); 376 (2034); 377 (2036); 378 (2046; and the only Baldwin in an otherwise all Alco bunch). For a time Bowser offered a brass tender of the sort used on these engines. Dave Nelson
Thanks for the pennsy-specific info, that's helpful !
Chuck wrote:
R.T. Poteet--
Ok, thank you very much for the correction. When I initially searched I did not find any information at all on PRR 3396, and figured the number must have been in the CC-2 group, but I did find some info. now.
Some of the PRR websites don't even mention that engine, apparently because they are devoted to photo images, and photos that far back are most assuredly rare in any case.
I was not aware PRR had ever had a 2-8-8-2 prior to the N&W engines--and many of the folks here in Central PA are in the same boat. Most everybody knows about the HC-1 2-8-8-0--but the other beast is definitely much less known among the local fans.
Best Regards--
D.K. Nelson--
Yes, the USRA 2-8-8-2 was based on the Y-2A. As I related above, it is discussed in detail in Huddleston's book Uncle Sam's Locomotives.
The USRA 2-8-8-2 book originally published by N.J. International has been rewritten twice now, and a drastically updated/expanded edition is available today.
Anyone have any idea if the PRR kept the ex-NW whistles on or replaced them with PRR standards and if so, passenger or freight?
Did the early Proto 2K HO models of any of the 2-8-8-2 come with two sets of front cylinders? I believe I had a Virginian model of that loco that had 2 sets of cylinders in the box. Did the Virginian operate as a compound??
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
I cannot speak for the model you had, but:
I have read many sources on the USRA 2-8-8-2, including all the NJI books and the updated book published by others since, and to the best of my knowledge none of the USRA or N&W engines was ever simpled, for any railroad. They were designed and operated their entire lives as compound articulateds.
Rio Grande rebuilt similar pre-USRA 2-8-8-2's with new boilers, but they remained as compounds. Rio Grande Class L-107 (the 10 USRA copies) served their entire lives as compounds.
Union Pacific installed a few Challenger-style pilots on ex-N&W and ex-C&O 2-8-8-2's, the C&O ones being actually H-7 simple articulateds, but UP did not simple any of the ex-N&W compounds they received. Instead they remained as compounds.
It was too late in the steam era, the diesels were coming, so at the end of WWII, nobody was interested in rebuilding to simple configuration engines that were only a stopgap until more diesels arrived.
Most of the ex-N&W and ex-C&O engines that did go west were retired and scrapped by 1948 at the latest (or in the case of Santa Fe were sent east to Virginian). The C&O ones, again, were simple H-7 class 2-8-8-2's.
Union Pacific did have a big fleet of 2-8-8-0's that was rebuilt from compound to simple operation, but none of them was ever a 2-8-8-2, and they have a very unique-to-UP look with a tapered boiler. They were all unmistakeably UP engines and look like nothing else except a vague resemblance to B&O EL3 and EL5 class engines.
Santa Fe did produce a concept sketch drawing of a 4-8-4 with an ex-N&W Y-3 class boiler (they reportedly loved the free steaming N&W boilers, but the Y-3's were too slow as mainline helpers on Raton and Cajon) but it was never actually constructed. No known plans were ever developed. The concept sketch drawing has appeared in published books.
PRR8259 I cannot speak for the model you had, but: I have read many sources on the USRA 2-8-8-2, including all the NJI books and the updated book published by others since, and to the best of my knowledge none of the USRA or N&W engines was ever simpled, for any railroad. They were designed and operated their entire lives as compound articulateds. John
John, they may have been compounds, but were able to take in high pressure steam into the compound cylinders which in the case of the Y6b as unmodified raised their tractive effort from approximately 126,000# as a compound to 152,000# when operating as a simple articulated.
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!
Yes, I am well aware, but the question posed above was regarding a change out of front cylinders, which is a different matter entirely. Thank you for reminding us that N&W designed a special valve to allow low speed simple operation.
In which book was this Santa Fe concept of the Y-3 boiler on the 4-8-4 showed. Gary
PRR8259Thank you for reminding us that N&W designed a special valve to allow low speed simple operation.
Because of maintainence issues related to the reducing valve, later on Bob Pilcher of the N&W designed an external reducing valve that improved reliability along with providing a method to operate in compound and provide the low pressure cylinders with a small amount of live steam in order to add heat to the steam in the receiver pipe. This has come to be known as the "Booster Valve".
As for the Y3 locos, don't be fooled if you see one with the big "Y" pipe. After rebuilding the Y5 engines, some of the Y3's were rebuilt with a Y5 front engine.
.