is a 2-10-0 smaller than 2-8-0?

[Anonymous]

in real life would bachmann's 2-10-0 be smaller than it's heavy 2-8-0 lengthwise and weight wise? i have heard from some people that the 2-10-0 is smaller than the larger 2-8-0's seen on railroads.

[Jetrock]

The nomenclature refers to the number and arrangement of wheels, not the weight or length of the locomotive, but typically a 2-10-0 of the same gauge as a 2-8-0 would probably be heavier. It depends on exactly what specific engines one is talking about.. I did a little search for Bachmann and found Bachmann has a Consolidation and a Decapod in their line--in real life, I'd imagine the Decapod is probably a little heavier.

[nfmisso]

The Spectrum 2-10-0 represents a locomotive that is smaller and lighter than the one represented by thier 2-8-0.

The 2-10-0:
Weight: 210,000 lbs ( 105 tons ),
Tractive Effort: 42180 lbs
Cylinders: 24x28
Boiler Pressure: 160 psi
Drivers: 52"
http://www.orgsites.com/mo/beltonrailroad/steam.htm

2-8-0 (PRR H9, same size as the locomotive that the Spectrum model represents)
Weight of engine in working order 251,000 lbs.
Starting tractive force 49,183 lbs.
Cylinders 25" x 28"
Steam pressure 205 lbs.
Drivers: 62"
http://www.bowser-trains.com/holocos/h9/h9.htm

The 2-8-0 represents a locomotive over 20% heavier.

[Anonymous]

Lou:

The engine the Bachmann 2-10-0 is based on was the socalled "Russian decapod". Socalled because they were first built to ligher (due to lighter prevailing rails) Russian specifications by Baldwin. WWI prevented delivery and they were taken over by USRA and allocated to various US railroads who found them very useful and quite good pullers for their size. I believe the original order was for 1200 units so they were quite common in US usage.

Randy

[CNJ831]

Randy is absolutely correct. It depends totally on just whose Decapods and Consolidations (railroad and class) you are talking about with regard to relative physical size and mass. While the Bachmann decapod represents a small version of that type of locomotive, the decapods employed on such roads as the Pennsy were enormous engines that would have dwarfed the Bachmann example. If equipped with a fully flanged wheel set, they would probably not operate on any but the largest radius HO curves - hardly a good choice for a product intended to appeal to a wide cross section of modelers. I believe Bowser offers examples of the huge Pennsy engines. Many American decapod prototypes were designed as slow, heavy haulers and were the largest locomtives of any kind on a given railroad when they were first introduced.

CNJ831

[NevinW]

I have both Bachmann models and the 2-8-0 is larger than the Decapod. Both handle 18 inch radius curves without any problem. That particular Russian was a very small locomotive for having 5 driver sets. Most Decapods were huge. - Nevin

[aegis2]

Nevin,

I also own both models. The Dec (2-10-0) locomotive is about 5/16" longer (from pilot to end of cab roof). I did not check the wheelbase. But the Dec is a small boilered loco and was designed for light rail loadings, while the 2-8-0 has a larger boiler and probably presents a heavier rail load. It should be noted that the Bachmann 2-8-0 is a generic locomotive. It has no real prototype, altho I beleive it is close to an IC locomotive.
Both a good performers.

[AltonFan]

The Bachmann 2-8-0 is based on an Illinois Central prototype, but it dates from before the time IC began installing those hexagonal sandboxes on their engines. I believe Model Railroader published drawings of the original IC engine.

A lot of railroads looking for a 2-10-0 were actually looking for something with as much pulling power as a 2-8-2, but with lighter axle loadings. The experience of some southern lines with the Russian decapods led to the development of a standard decapod design by Baldwin.