Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Questions: Need clarification and info -- PRR 2-8-8-2

17488 views
29 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April, 2008
  • From: Northern VA
  • 3,050 posts
Questions: Need clarification and info -- PRR 2-8-8-2
Posted by jwhitten on Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:26 AM

(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

 

Modeling the South Pennsylvania Railroad ("The Hilltop Route") in the late 50's
  • Member since
    September, 2002
  • From: California & Maine
  • 3,813 posts
Posted by andrechapelon on Thursday, February 11, 2010 12:57 PM

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.

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

It's really kind of hard to support your local hobby shop when the nearest hobby shop that's worth the name is a 150 mile roundtrip.
  • Member since
    October, 2001
  • From: OH
  • 16,810 posts
Posted by BRAKIE on Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:40 PM

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) ???

------------------------------

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

SSRy

Conductor

“Shut one’s eyes tight or open one’s arms wide, either way, one’s a fool.” Flemeth-the witch of the Wilds.
  • Member since
    April, 2008
  • From: Northern VA
  • 3,050 posts
Posted by jwhitten on Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:54 PM

andrechapelon

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.

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

 

 

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.

 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.

 

John

Modeling the South Pennsylvania Railroad ("The Hilltop Route") in the late 50's
  • Member since
    January, 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 7,904 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:56 PM

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

 

    

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:57 PM

BRAKIE

 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.

  • Member since
    April, 2008
  • From: Northern VA
  • 3,050 posts
Posted by jwhitten on Thursday, February 11, 2010 2:03 PM

 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.

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.

 

John

Modeling the South Pennsylvania Railroad ("The Hilltop Route") in the late 50's
  • Member since
    April, 2008
  • From: Northern VA
  • 3,050 posts
Posted by jwhitten on Thursday, February 11, 2010 2:04 PM

BRAKIE

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) ???

------------------------------

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.

 

John

Modeling the South Pennsylvania Railroad ("The Hilltop Route") in the late 50's
  • Member since
    April, 2008
  • From: Northern VA
  • 3,050 posts
Posted by jwhitten on Thursday, February 11, 2010 2:07 PM

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

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

 

 

 

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..?

John

Modeling the South Pennsylvania Railroad ("The Hilltop Route") in the late 50's
  • Member since
    January, 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 7,904 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Thursday, February 11, 2010 2:18 PM

 

 

jwhitten
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..?

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.

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    February, 2005
  • From: Southwest US
  • 12,914 posts
Posted by tomikawaTT on Thursday, February 11, 2010 3:07 PM

A couple of points that might need clarifying:

  • The Y-6b was the ONLY N&W Y-series loco that had a Worthington SA feedwater heater (that rectangular 'hump' in front of the stack)  Starting with the Y-3 (and retrofitted to the Y-2) the Ys were equipped with Worthington BL feedwater heaters, that oversize hunk of hardware on the fireman's side just forward of the high-pressure cylinders.
  • The Y-6bs were equipped from the start with high-capacity tenders, and didn't last long enough to wear them out.  Earlier models which had been built with smaller tenders had them replaced in later years by high-capacity tenders purchased from other railroads - notably RF&P.
  • The Y-3 wasn't a copy of the USRA 2-8-8-2.  The USRA adopted the N&W design as standard.
  • The Y-3s that were turned over to the Pennsy were given keystone number plates on their smokebox doors, a feature previously reserved for passenger power.

 

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with one 16-drivered catenary motor)

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • 3,312 posts
Posted by locoi1sa on Thursday, February 11, 2010 4:59 PM

 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!

  • Member since
    January, 2010
  • 699 posts
Posted by UP 4-12-2 on Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:22 PM

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--

John

 

  • Member since
    January, 2010
  • 699 posts
Posted by UP 4-12-2 on Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:31 PM

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.

Respectfully submitted--

John

  • Member since
    January, 2010
  • 699 posts
Posted by UP 4-12-2 on Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:55 PM

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.

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • 3,312 posts
Posted by locoi1sa on Thursday, February 11, 2010 7:13 PM

 John

 Thank you for the correction. I should have re read before sending. I meant HC1 instead of HH1.

  Next time I will re read.

      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!

  • Member since
    March, 2002
  • From: Milwaukee WI (Fox Point)
  • 9,955 posts
Posted by dknelson on Thursday, February 11, 2010 8:57 PM

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

  • Member since
    April, 2006
  • From: THE FAR, FAR REACHES OF THE WILD, WILD WEST!
  • 3,672 posts
Posted by R. T. POTEET on Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:20 PM

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

  • Member since
    April, 2008
  • From: Northern VA
  • 3,050 posts
Posted by jwhitten on Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:54 PM

dknelson

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

 

 

Thanks for the pennsy-specific info, that's helpful !

 

John

Modeling the South Pennsylvania Railroad ("The Hilltop Route") in the late 50's
  • Member since
    October, 2001
  • From: OH
  • 16,810 posts
Posted by BRAKIE on Thursday, February 11, 2010 10:36 PM

Chuck wrote:

The Y-3s that were turned over to the Pennsy were given keystone number plates on their smokebox doors, a feature previously reserved for passenger power.
-----------------------------------------------
Sorry Chuck but,the J1s and M1s had the keystone number plates as well.

 

Larry

SSRy

Conductor

“Shut one’s eyes tight or open one’s arms wide, either way, one’s a fool.” Flemeth-the witch of the Wilds.
  • Member since
    January, 2010
  • 699 posts
Posted by UP 4-12-2 on Friday, February 12, 2010 3:23 PM

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--

John

 

  • Member since
    January, 2010
  • 699 posts
Posted by UP 4-12-2 on Friday, February 12, 2010 3:27 PM

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.

John

  • Member since
    September, 2002
  • 6,800 posts
Posted by ndbprr on Friday, February 12, 2010 4:22 PM

 

PRR did test an A class engine and the results are in Balls book the PRR in the 40's and 50's. Basic philosphy of the PRR was toward using multiple engines when needed and not articulateds.  To the best of my knowledge the Y6b's came along to late for the PRR to have much interest.  By then the railroad was heavily invested in split drive engines like the T1 and Q2.
  • Member since
    May, 2009
  • 127 posts
Posted by Flynn on Friday, February 12, 2010 7:40 PM

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?

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,465 posts
Posted by railandsail on Wednesday, August 16, 2017 5:59 AM

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??

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 814 posts
Posted by PRR8259 on Wednesday, August 16, 2017 12:46 PM

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.

John

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Nordonia Hills, OH
  • 1,715 posts
Posted by dti406 on Wednesday, August 16, 2017 1:42 PM

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!

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 814 posts
Posted by PRR8259 on Thursday, August 17, 2017 11:21 PM

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.

John

  • Member since
    May, 2011
  • 47 posts
Posted by IA and eastern on Monday, March 18, 2019 1:24 PM

In which book was this Santa Fe concept of the Y-3 boiler on the 4-8-4 showed. Gary

  • Member since
    April, 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 1,713 posts
Posted by BigJim on Monday, March 18, 2019 6:20 PM

PRR8259
Thank you for reminding us that N&W designed a special valve to allow low speed simple operation.


That is not true either.
All of the compound 2-8-8-2's built by ALCO, and the N&W engine was based on that design, had a valve that allowed the engines to be used in simple. This was designed at ALCO by a man named Mellon: http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/mallet.Html.

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.

.

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!