More Articulated Steam Egines please!

[cudaken]

 Virginian, do you have a PIC or a link to the BLI N&W Class A? I need to buy more books on steam.

 First I like to thank all that took time to answer, but even with over 1000 post I still stupid when it comes to trains. Most of the postings was asking for help not answers. So when you  smart Steam folks say a Class A I have no clue to what it looks like!

 Case in point, have been in to Mopar mainly Charger's most people could not tell a 1969 Charger from a 1970 Charger. I on the other hand could list about 40 things + that are close but driffrent. Heck I can tell what year a mirror for a E-body (cuda) was made for. To the trained eye it is easy, but 97% of the people they will look the same. I hope you folks undestand the boat I am in.

 I will all so say I want something that looks driffrent from the Y-6b and Big Boy I have. I am far from being a rivret counter. Much like most people would think a 73 Cuda and a 74 Cuda look's the same! By the way the rarest year for a Cuda was 1974 only around 3000 made.

 Thanks again for all the kind answers. More PIC would be of great help!

 By the way, the Y6 B is the best engine to date! I have yet to find out the max it can pull. 40 cars + and it just creeps around the bench and up the grade with no slowing!

             Cuda Ken

[Heartland Division CB&Q]

NP Z6, Z7, or Z8

Sorry, UP fans, but there are plenty of UP RR 4-6-6-4's already.

[markpierce]

Here is more expert opinion on why SP's Yellowstones required a four-wheel truck under the firebox:

The weight on the four wheel truck varied from 87,000 lbs. to 72,100
lbs. As the maximum axle loading on the SP during AC days was about
69.000 lbs the four wheel truck was required. But also, as mentioned in
this thread, the four wheel truck gave better tracking around the sharp
mountain curves and also at the 60 mph speeds allowed when the track was
not so curvy. The WP used a two wheel truck under the firebox of the 250
class by allowing enough more weight on each driving axle to keep the
maximum axle loading to 69,000 lbs. and as far as I recall it was the
only railroad to use only a two wheel truck under such a large firebox.
This axle loading restricted the engines to the low speed mountain
crossing Oroville to Portola so a maximum speed of 40 mph or so was
sufficient.

In the era from about 1900 on the SP designed most of their steam
locomotives and had them built to order. Remember the Harriman standard
engines? They were mostly designed by the SP staff. By the 1920s and
1930s the SP, UP, NYC, N&W and some others had engineering staffs that
equaled or exceeded the builder's. As an example, Baldwin had notorious
trouble with counterbalance on 4-8-4s for ACL and 4-6-4s for the NYNH&H
but the SP ACs ran easily at 65 mph with only 63" drivers because the SP
engineered the counterbalance, not Baldwin. The PRR, until the 1920s,
probably had the best staff of all, but then they focused on electrics
and lost focus on steam. Lima had a very innovative engineering staff
and after much argument with the SP's did influence the design of the
later GS classes. And Alco did much if not most of the 4-10-2 design
work. The four wheel truck on those engines was only because of the
extra weight of the three cylinder setup.

Charles Givens

[Virginian]

Ken,

You of all people NEED a BLI N&W Class A.  A model of probably the finest reciprocating steam locomotive EVER built.  And the BLI award winning model version will pull 150 cars on the flat and mine scaled a 2% grade, but the grade was only about 13 feet long so the whole train wasn't on the grade at once.

I have 3, and if and when they release the 1238 and up roller bearing version, I will have 4.  I kinda like them.  I also have several of the Proto 2000 2-8-8-2s (started life as N&W Y3s) as well, and while they run like a Swiss watch and you can modify the undec versions with perfect fitting extra parts about 10 different ways, you do need to add weight to get real good pulling ability.

[R. T. POTEET]

Reference twhite's and my debate above on the reason for the SP four-wheel truck under their backward (cab-forward) Yellowstones.  I received the following from an expert, Bob Church via Tony Thompson (anything in blue is my addition):

Mark Pierce wrote:
> . . . I had believed the SP 4-8-8-2 design was primarily to reduce the
> axle-load on the larger-firebox ACs. What's the answer?

I forwarded Mark's question to Bob Church, who isn't a member of
this list  (SP Yahoo). Here's his reply:

"Some conclusions can be rationally made by looking at the
specification differences between the AC-1, 2, and 3 classes (2-8-8-2s) and the
AC-4s up (4-8-8-2s) . On the bigger classes, the drivers were 63" dia. vs 57"
diameter, which allowed faster speeds, especially with better balancing
capabilities with the disc drivers on the AC-7s up. The big AC's were
pretty much standard on passenger trains in mountainous territories, so
a four wheel truck was necessary to lead trains into curves at
passenger train speeds. That is why all standard passenger engines had
a four-wheel trucks. The centering/lateral motion mechanism of a single
axle lead truck just doesn't have the ability to "lead" an engine into
a curve at higher speeds with safety.

"Note the marked difference in firebox size of the smaller and larger
AC's and it should be evident that support of the weight was also a
contributing factor. (The use of the four-wheel truck under the firebox was retained in 2-8-8-4s of the AC-9 class, the "cab-backward" AC-8.) The bigger also had the weight of a much bigger compustion chamber to support. The WP and Messabe Yellowstones were not
passenger haulers, and were not running firebox forward.

"Weight distribution and better trackability are combined reasons for
the four-wheel lead truck.

Bob Church"


Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com

Mark

I don't know who this Bob Church is but he's the only guy who's agreed with me in the last six months!!!

[twhite]

Reference twhite's and my debate above on the reason for the SP four-wheel truck under their backward (cab-forward) Yellowstones.  I received the following from an expert, Bob Church via Tony Thompson (anything in blue is my addition):

Mark Pierce wrote:
> . . . I had believed the SP 4-8-8-2 design was primarily to reduce the
> axle-load on the larger-firebox ACs. What's the answer?

I forwarded Mark's question to Bob Church, who isn't a member of
this list  (SP Yahoo). Here's his reply:

"Some conclusions can be rationally made by looking at the
specification differences between the AC-1, 2, and 3 classes (2-8-8-2s) and the
AC-4s up (4-8-8-2s) . On the bigger classes, the drivers were 63" dia. vs 57"
diameter, which allowed faster speeds, especially with better balancing
capabilities with the disc drivers on the AC-7s up. The big AC's were
pretty much standard on passenger trains in mountainous territories, so
a four wheel truck was necessary to lead trains into curves at
passenger train speeds. That is why all standard passenger engines had
a four-wheel trucks. The centering/lateral motion mechanism of a single
axle lead truck just doesn't have the ability to "lead" an engine into
a curve at higher speeds with safety.

"Note the marked difference in firebox size of the smaller and larger
AC's and it should be evident that support of the weight was also a
contributing factor. (The use of the four-wheel truck under the firebox was retained in 2-8-8-4s of the AC-9 class, the "cab-backward" AC-8.) The bigger also had the weight of a much bigger compustion chamber to support. The WP and Messabe Yellowstones were not
passenger haulers, and were not running firebox forward.

"Weight distribution and better trackability are combined reasons for
the four-wheel lead truck.

Bob Church"


Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com

Mark

Mark--

Good response you got, and it makes a lot of sense.  BOTH tracking and weight distribution.  Hey, I've never decided that I'm too old to learn anything, LOL! 

As an aside, though I love that AC-12 here at the Sacramento Railroad Museum, I sure wish that SP had decided to preserve one of those 'transitional' AC-6's.  Only AC I ever rode in, but I sure have fond memories of that class, especially the 'flat' face.   It was also the first AC with the boiler-front hung 'talking' pumps, and let me tell you, could those pumps carry on a conversation with each other, LOL!

Tom  

[twhite]

heh, been on the hunt for a DM&IR 2-8-8-4, and I finally Ebayed a winner. The Akane, hopefully be here soon. This engine keeps popping up on ebay, and really, the ebay prices have been going about equal to the new plastic stuff except for the newer brass releases.

Some modelmaker HAS to make this engine in the plastic and get DCC and sound into it.

I have a record here with the engine sounds, guys, this baby's a monster with a ghostly whistle! 

 

 

Dinwitty--

I doubt you'll be disappointed in the Akane--it's a big, heavy delicious brute of a locomotive and pulls like a team of oxen.  I've got two Yellowstones (one that I bought in 1965 when they were new), and if you don't mind a little 'coffee-grinder' noise from the gearing, you'll probably be very happy with their pulling power.  Not as beautifully detailed as newer brass, but if you want to improve the castings, you can get better castings from either Cal-Scale or Precision Scale Miniatures (I did, mainly to replace the Worthington FWH with an Elesco).  However all in all, they're one SPECTACULAR loco.  I've replaced the motor on my older one with a NWSL can, however the motor in the newer one (outside frame) is a very smooth runner.  Believe it or not, they CAN negotiate a 24" radius, however they look much better on a 30" or bigger.  I hope you enjoy it.  If not, let me know and I'll be happy to take it off of your hands, LOL! 

Tom

 

its not even in my hands...yet   8-D

gotta build my layout now, a bad excuse is going to arrive. I have a test track tho and the seller said it needs a little work, I am no stranger to doing that, if I can fix the ALCO EL2 broken gears issue, I can do this.

the lead wheels on any engine are to help tracking and lead the engine into curves. If you find the wheels under the firebox they are supporting the firebox, if not, a little more for guiding.

 

Dinwitty--

Working on the Akane's is really simple--4 screws (two above the 2nd cylinder set and two under the cab) and the boiler's off and everything else is right there waiting for you.  VERY simple gearing on the little devil--Akanes were famous for their (then) superior mechanisms.  You should have very little trouble getting it in top shape. 

Enjoy!

Tom

[markpierce]

Reference twhite's and my debate above on the reason for the SP four-wheel truck under their backward (cab-forward) Yellowstones.  I received the following from an expert, Bob Church via Tony Thompson (anything in blue is my addition):

Mark Pierce wrote:
> . . . I had believed the SP 4-8-8-2 design was primarily to reduce the
> axle-load on the larger-firebox ACs. What's the answer?

I forwarded Mark's question to Bob Church, who isn't a member of
this list  (SP Yahoo). Here's his reply:

"Some conclusions can be rationally made by looking at the
specification differences between the AC-1, 2, and 3 classes (2-8-8-2s) and the
AC-4s up (4-8-8-2s) . On the bigger classes, the drivers were 63" dia. vs 57"
diameter, which allowed faster speeds, especially with better balancing
capabilities with the disc drivers on the AC-7s up. The big AC's were
pretty much standard on passenger trains in mountainous territories, so
a four wheel truck was necessary to lead trains into curves at
passenger train speeds. That is why all standard passenger engines had
a four-wheel trucks. The centering/lateral motion mechanism of a single
axle lead truck just doesn't have the ability to "lead" an engine into
a curve at higher speeds with safety.

"Note the marked difference in firebox size of the smaller and larger
AC's and it should be evident that support of the weight was also a
contributing factor. (The use of the four-wheel truck under the firebox was retained in 2-8-8-4s of the AC-9 class, the "cab-backward" AC-8.) The bigger also had the weight of a much bigger compustion chamber to support. The WP and Messabe Yellowstones were not
passenger haulers, and were not running firebox forward.

"Weight distribution and better trackability are combined reasons for
the four-wheel lead truck.

Bob Church"


Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com

Mark

[dinwitty]

heh, been on the hunt for a DM&IR 2-8-8-4, and I finally Ebayed a winner. The Akane, hopefully be here soon. This engine keeps popping up on ebay, and really, the ebay prices have been going about equal to the new plastic stuff except for the newer brass releases.

Some modelmaker HAS to make this engine in the plastic and get DCC and sound into it.

I have a record here with the engine sounds, guys, this baby's a monster with a ghostly whistle! 

 

 

Dinwitty--

I doubt you'll be disappointed in the Akane--it's a big, heavy delicious brute of a locomotive and pulls like a team of oxen.  I've got two Yellowstones (one that I bought in 1965 when they were new), and if you don't mind a little 'coffee-grinder' noise from the gearing, you'll probably be very happy with their pulling power.  Not as beautifully detailed as newer brass, but if you want to improve the castings, you can get better castings from either Cal-Scale or Precision Scale Miniatures (I did, mainly to replace the Worthington FWH with an Elesco).  However all in all, they're one SPECTACULAR loco.  I've replaced the motor on my older one with a NWSL can, however the motor in the newer one (outside frame) is a very smooth runner.  Believe it or not, they CAN negotiate a 24" radius, however they look much better on a 30" or bigger.  I hope you enjoy it.  If not, let me know and I'll be happy to take it off of your hands, LOL! 

Tom

 

its not even in my hands...yet   8-D

gotta build my layout now, a bad excuse is going to arrive. I have a test track tho and the seller said it needs a little work, I am no stranger to doing that, if I can fix the ALCO EL2 broken gears issue, I can do this.

the lead wheels on any engine are to help tracking and lead the engine into curves. If you find the wheels under the firebox they are supporting the firebox, if not, a little more for guiding.

 

[R. T. POTEET]

I'm going to have to weigh in on the 4-8-8-2 issue; sometime in the past I read that the original reason for the 4-wheel truck under the cab of the cab-forwards - initially under 2-6-6-2s - was to overcome a traction problem HOWEVER the 4 wheel lead truck, in addition to solving the tracking problem, did indeed allow for a larger firebox and when SP ordered simple x-8-8-x articulateds sometime in the late twenties they specified the four wheel 'trailing' truck on their 'backwards' running engines hence the world got a 4-8-8-2 Cab-forward which became Espee's trademark locomotive.

[markpierce]

Attah boy, Tom.  You inspire!

Mark

[twhite]

heh, been on the hunt for a DM&IR 2-8-8-4, and I finally Ebayed a winner. The Akane, hopefully be here soon. This engine keeps popping up on ebay, and really, the ebay prices have been going about equal to the new plastic stuff except for the newer brass releases.

Some modelmaker HAS to make this engine in the plastic and get DCC and sound into it.

I have a record here with the engine sounds, guys, this baby's a monster with a ghostly whistle! 

 

 

Dinwitty--

I doubt you'll be disappointed in the Akane--it's a big, heavy delicious brute of a locomotive and pulls like a team of oxen.  I've got two Yellowstones (one that I bought in 1965 when they were new), and if you don't mind a little 'coffee-grinder' noise from the gearing, you'll probably be very happy with their pulling power.  Not as beautifully detailed as newer brass, but if you want to improve the castings, you can get better castings from either Cal-Scale or Precision Scale Miniatures (I did, mainly to replace the Worthington FWH with an Elesco).  However all in all, they're one SPECTACULAR loco.  I've replaced the motor on my older one with a NWSL can, however the motor in the newer one (outside frame) is a very smooth runner.  Believe it or not, they CAN negotiate a 24" radius, however they look much better on a 30" or bigger.  I hope you enjoy it.  If not, let me know and I'll be happy to take it off of your hands, LOL! 

Tom

[dinwitty]

heh, been on the hunt for a DM&IR 2-8-8-4, and I finally Ebayed a winner. The Akane, hopefully be here soon. This engine keeps popping up on ebay, and really, the ebay prices have been going about equal to the new plastic stuff except for the newer brass releases.

Some modelmaker HAS to make this engine in the plastic and get DCC and sound into it.

I have a record here with the engine sounds, guys, this baby's a monster with a ghostly whistle! 

 

[Darth Santa Fe]

Like some of the other guys have said, the Rivarossi 2-6-6-6 would be an excellent choice. I've got one, and it is my best steam engine, period.

The other Rivarossi stuff is good too. They're great runners, and even though the detail is 60s technology, they still look pretty good.

Other choices would be BLI, PCM, P2K and Mantua Classics. And then there's the MTH 2-8-8-8-2 coming out soon, if you want something with a LOT of drive wheels! And then there's always Bowser, if you want to build a kit.

Here's a link to my review of the Allegheny, if you want to read about it.
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1181541/ShowPost.aspx#1181541

[twhite]

Tom,

I have to disagree that the SP 4-8-8-2 cab-forwards had a four-wheel truck under the firebox for better tracking rather than supporting a bigger firebox.  The AC-1 thru -3 2-8-8-2 cab-forwards had shorter fireboxes than the 4-8-8-2 AC-4s thru -8s and -10s thru 12.  The cab-forward MM/AM-2s, originally 2-6-6-2s on the other hand, were modified into 4-6-6-2s because of tracking problems.  The two MC-1s were built conventionally, and when modified as cab-forwards, becoming MC-2s (compound steam locomotives) and later AC-1s (when simplified to all high-pressure cylinders.

The conventional AC-9s of 2-8-8-4 configuration were considered "cab-backwards" by SP crews.  The crews considered cab-forwards superior to the "regular type."  Lima built the AC-9s, and Baldwin built the other ACs as well as the MM/AM-2s.  Alco/Sch. built the two conventional MM-3s (slow moving compound 2-6-6-2s) which the SP inherited from the Verde Tunnel & Smelter Railway in Arizona.  The slow speed of compound engines caused the SP to convert all of its other compound mallets to all-high-pressure cylinders.  (Thus the change in class from MM to AM and MC to AC.)  The later SP articulated classes, all 4-8-8-2s and 2-8-8-4s, were built for all high-pressure steam.

Mark

Mark--

Actually, you didn't tell me anything I didn't already know about the AC's.  The AC 4 and 5's were rated at 116,000 lbs TE, and the AC 6's and above were around 123,000 lbs TE, which of course was a huge improvement over the earlier 2-8-8-2's, and certainly needed a BIGGER firebox to obtain that power, but not necessarily a firebox that would require a 4-wheel supporting truck (WP's 2-8-8-2's--the prototype for the Missabe M3/M4 Yellowstones-- had as large, if not slightly larger firebox than the AC's, and supported it with only a 2-wheel truck).  Espee wanted a powerful articulated capable of passenger train speeds (which they got), and having learned their lesson from the little 'baby mallet' MM's, specified a 4-wheel leading truck mainly for tracking purposes.  Now if that turns them into 'backward Yellowstones', so be it, but Espee engineers (of which my great-uncle was one) simply referred to them as "Malleys", simple or not. 

One of the thrills of my childhood was riding between Truckee and Norden in the cab of an AC-6, and let me tell you, THAT was an experience.  Great locomotives!

Tom  

 

[gn goat]

The Yellowstone was operated mainly by the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range RR (DM&IR). It came in two versions: the M3 and M4 with one being heavier than the other. The Missabe used them for hauling iron ore from Minnesota's Iron Range to Lake Superior ports for shipment to the iron mills back east. During the winter when Lake Superior froze the DM&IR lent their Yellowstones to the D&RGW. In a letter to the Missabe they stated that the Yellowstone was the finest steam locomotive they had ever operated. There are three remaining Yellowstones, two of which are in disrepair. The third is at the Duluth, Minnesota, rail museum and is in beautiful shape - well worth a stop if you're up that way. I have an Akane brass Yellowstone that I "stole" on eBay. I don't operate it - strictly for show. The only thing not prototypical about it is that the 1:1 Yellowstone centipede tenders were of welded construction and my model shows it as rivited, but I can live with that.

[marknewton]

My frazzled brain recalled the Leader as a steam electric...OOPS! Were they inside cylinders?

Yes Dave, each bogie had three cylinders between the frames, with sleeve valves and chain drives, no less! The cylinders were fabricated and welded into place. It was later suggested that the many problems with the sleeve valves may have been in part caused by the distortion of the cylinder assemblies when they were welded in.

I did once meet someone who had fired a Leader... his comments were definitely not repeatable here. The real problem was that they were designed to be oil fired with the fireman riding in the leading cab not stuck into an added in sweat box shand shovelling coal in the middle with no air supply. The thing would nearly kill firemen.

You're not wrong! The idea of oil firing seems to have been dropped early on in the design phase, which was in my view a mistake. The fireman's lot on the Leaders was not improved by the use of a "dry-back" boiler with syphons, not unlike the Briggs boiler familiar to the small-scale live steam builders. The firebrick lining gave endless trouble, and did little to reduce the excess temperatures in the fireman's compartment.

Years ago I knew a bloke who had worked as a boilermaker at Eastleigh when the Leader boilers were built there. He said that the boilers were a successful design, in as much as they met or exceeded their specifications. They were certainly an advance over typical UK practice of the time, being of mostly welded construction, and having full rocking grates. The syphons had cross tubes instead of stays, another successful innovation.

The German army beasts were "Lutomoller's system" IIRC. There were both 10 and 6 wheeled variants of the Lutomollers.

I dunno about that. As far as I'm aware, the only Luttermöller system Feldbahn engines were a small number of 0-10-0Ts built by O&K. Another small batch of 0-10-0s built by Borsig had Gölsdorf axles. The great majority of Feldbahn engines, the well-known 0-8-0T "Brigadeloks", had Klein-Linder articulated axles.

A system which was outwardly similar was developed at Duffield bank in Derbyshire ... by I can't recall who by. That "outwardly" is a bit dubious on reflection... these engines had a sort of radial system on the outer axles but managed to have coupling rods outside the frames...weird.

That was Sir Arthur Heyward, the loco was "River Irt". It operated in a similar manner to Klein-Lindner axles, but relied on the use of cylindrical/curved crankpin brasses to allow the axles to move without distorting the rods. The fitters and machinists must have loved them...

No I don't have any experience on any steam footplates... dirty, mucky things! (Actually I did ride a Black 5 on the Central Wales Line when I was a kid). I certainly don't crawl around them... YEUK!

Yeah, but this is the way you learn about how they're nailed together, and how they work.
I've travelled a lot over the years, and I've never missed an opportunity to drive, fire or get under a steam loco if it was offered. That hasn't always made me popular with my travelling companions, but!

In all fairness, footplates are only as clean or dirty as the enginemen working them. I've been known to step off an engine at the end of the day almost as clean-looking as when I stepped on - sometimes!

I clearly got which way round the Rack/Adhesion locos were arranged wrong... Did they have seperate regulators/throttles for the two engines?

Yes, plus separate braking systems. The FCAB engines had straight air independent brake, automatic train brake, repression/counterpressure brake for adhesion and rack engines, band brake on the rack pinions and hand brake. The crew must have been busier than a one-armed bricklayer in Baghdad when it came time to stop!

I had forgotten the US boosters. Would you agree that they effectively did the same thing as slugs?

Er, I'm not sure. What do slugs do?

As for your observations about modern computerised EMUs, I couldn't agree more. We are currently being qualified on new traction, the so-called "OSCARS". When they go bad, which is all too often, you don't call out a fitter, but an IT technician. I hate the bloody things.

Cheers,

Mark.

[marknewton]

Mark, do you happen to know how a DuBosquet was hinged?)

Chuck, they were arranged like a Meyer. The front bogie pin was a large diameter sperical bearing, the rear was a flat bearing. The front bogie could move in any direction relative to the boiler, but the rear could only turn in the horizontal plane. The rear sidetanks were mounted on the boiler cradle/frame, but the front tanks were mounted on the front bogie, and moved with it.

Cheers,

Mark.

[markpierce]

Tom,

I have to disagree that the SP 4-8-8-2 cab-forwards had a four-wheel truck under the firebox for better tracking rather than supporting a bigger firebox.  The AC-1 thru -3 2-8-8-2 cab-forwards had shorter fireboxes than the 4-8-8-2 AC-4s thru -8s and -10s thru 12.  The cab-forward MM/AM-2s, originally 2-6-6-2s on the other hand, were modified into 4-6-6-2s because of tracking problems.  The two MC-1s were built conventionally, and when modified as cab-forwards, becoming MC-2s (compound steam locomotives) and later AC-1s (when simplified to all high-pressure cylinders.

The conventional AC-9s of 2-8-8-4 configuration were considered "cab-backwards" by SP crews.  The crews considered cab-forwards superior to the "regular type."  Lima built the AC-9s, and Baldwin built the other ACs as well as the MM/AM-2s.  Alco/Sch. built the two conventional MM-3s (slow moving compound 2-6-6-2s) which the SP inherited from the Verde Tunnel & Smelter Railway in Arizona.  The slow speed of compound engines caused the SP to convert all of its other compound mallets to all-high-pressure cylinders.  (Thus the change in class from MM to AM and MC to AC.)  The later SP articulated classes, all 4-8-8-2s and 2-8-8-4s, were built for all high-pressure steam.

Mark

[navygunner]

Here's a shot of a 2-10-2 CofG USRA Santa Fe (top), a 2-8-8-2 N&W USRA Y3 (center) and a 2-8-8-4 Missabe Yellowstone (bottom).  These are all N Scale models.  The Yellowstone is the reason I have upgraded to 20 and 22 inch radius curves on my layout as it has a fixed rear driver set that prevents reliable operation on 15 and 13.5 inch radius.  The Yellowstone pulls 60 plus 40 foot cars up a 2% grade with no problems if the curves are not too tight.  If you have the money and can find one in your scale, I say go for it!!

Here's a link to the distributors webpage:  http://www.benchmark-models.us/N/Index.html  They have a better camera than I have.

Your Y3 is a predecessor to the Y6b, after the USRA was disolved, N&W kept on upgrading the 2-8-8-2 to make it one of the most efficient drag freight locomotives ever built.  This was the Y6b, while no one ever compared the tonnage moved by any of the later US articulated locomotives, th N&W locomotives were regarded as more efficient in terms of coal and water used per ton/mile.  Being designed to haul heavy loads in the mountains of the Eastern US at 25 mph, the western companies were not satisfied with the performance of the 2-8-8-2, so they sold or scrapped their allotments as soon as WWI and the USRA ended.

Bob

[twhite]

 I have sort of mastered the Big Boy (after it comes back from BLI to fix the lights) and the PCM Y6b kicks butt. It got off to a flakey start with the cannon plug not staying in the engine and some odd crude on the tender wheels. But two calls to Bob at BLI she is draging 40 coal cars like there is nothing behinde her. Flicker fire in the fire box was a sweet touch I will add.

 So what is next in the way of Articulated steam engines?

 I know about the Challenger, but besides it what else is out there? I read something about a Yellow Stone, what does it look like?

 Is a Y-3 all most the same engine as my Y6b?

 Pic and Links, it will be a while before I buy anything with my Daughter getting married but I need to know what to look for.

           Cuda Ken

 

Ken--

Of the available non-brass articulateds available, might I suggest the Rivarossi H-8 2-6-6-6, one Heckuva handsome loco, smooth runner, INCREDIBLE puller, and just a real sweetheart of a loco.  And though it has a 14-wheel tender, it's NOT a Centipede, so you shouldn't have tracking problems on your layout (the tender has a 6-wheel and an 8-wheel swiveling truck).  Quite a lovely locomotive.  I've got the older version from some years back, and it's just a jewel. 

Also, check Micromark, they are offering the Bachmann Spectrum 2-6-6-2--a smaller articulated, but a very smooth-running one, and a VERY decent puller. 

You asked about a Yellowstone:  It was developed from the 2-8-8-2 only adding a 4-wheel trailing truck to accomodate a more 'super-powered' elongated firebox.  Not a lot of railroads had them, but they were extremely powerful locomotives.  Probably the most famous are those of the Missabe Road, whose tractive power (148,000 lbs) was rated ABOVE that of the famous UP Big Boy (though the locomotives were assigned to vastly different service).  Some other roads that ran Yellowstones included the Northern Pacific (for which the first ones were built), Baltimore and Ohio and Southern Pacific.  Espee's were built by Lima and were the only cab-backward 2-8-8-4's on the railroad.  Some consider the Espee cab-forwards to be 'backward' Yellowstones (4-8-8-2) however on the Cab-forwards, the 4-wheel leading truck was designed for tracking purposes rather than to support an elongated firebox.  Right now, however, the only Yellowstones available on the market (when you can find them) would be used brass from manufacturers such as Akane or Precision Scale Miniatures, and they're NOT cheap!

Tom  

 

 

[dinwitty]

Yah, the Y3 is an early version the N&W used.

Not mentioned yet are the Southern Pacific Cab Forwards.  4-8-8-2, there were 2-8-8-2 as well, Rivarossi had the, BLI has one, Intermountain also.

you will have to go brass for other variety.

 

DM&IR yellowstone 2-8-8-4 

[don7]

 

I would also recommend the Bachmann Spectrum 2-6-6-2. These engines are great runners, good slow speed running.

 

Another articulate to consider is the new Mantua 2-6-6-2, it is very close to the Great Northern L series. As I would like to model Canadian Steam I could justify these running in the East Kootenay's on the GN trackage along with CP Steam as well. 

With a bit of work you have one of the early mallets. Later in life these engines were converted into the O-5 and O-6 series Mikado's

http://www.steamlocomotive.info/brochure.html

[Isambard]

------

Finally, an engine that doesn't seem to get a lot of press, but is one of my favorites, is the Bachmann 2-6-6-2. I can't for the life of me figure why they stopped making it. This is a beautiful engine, it runs smoothly, is detailed on the level of the protos and is close to being as nice as the Rivarossi H-8. If you can find one of these little gems on e-bay or a train show, snatch one up, you won't be dissappointed.

Excelsiorss, there's good news! Micromark is accepting orders for Bachmann Spectrum sound- equipped 2-6-6-2's, with anticipated deliveries starting this November. That would explain  why their fantastic clearance sale of soundless 2-6-6-2's several months ago. I love my Grizzly Northern 2-6-6-2 Monashee, but oh how I now lust for a sound-equipped one!  

[Dave-the-Train]

Mark

I'm not going to attempt to quote quotes!

My frazzled brain recalled the Leader as a steam electric... OOPS!  Were they inside cylinders?  That would make it an artic the same as a Fairlie by my definition... which I think does make a suitable distinction between artic and flexible which puts the Hagens into the flexible type... only one set of cylinders and the connection made to the rear powered truck by a lever system... I actually worked out what the levers and pivot points were for this to make a model... but shifted to driving myself nuts with LandRovers instead.

I did once meet someone who had fired a Leader... his comments were definitely not repeatable here.  The real problem was that they were designed to be oil fired with the fireman riding in the leading cab not stuck into an added in sweat box shand shovelling coal in the middle with no air supply.  The thing would nearly kill firemen.

Chuck does a better job of distinguishing between artics and flexibles.

The German army beasts were "Lutomoller's system" IIRC. There were both 10 and 6 wheeled variants of the Lutomollers. The outer axles were driven via gear mechanisms which also made a radial frame between the main frames.  IIRC they worked quite well in Namibia/German South West Africa.

A system which was outwardly similar was  developed at Duffield bank in Derbyshire ... by I can't recall who by.  That "outwardly" is a bit dubious on reflection... these engines had a sort of radial syatem on the outer axles but managed to have coupling rods outside the frames... weird.

No I don't have any experience on any steam footplates... dirty, mucky things!  (Actually I did ride a Black 5 on the Central Wales Line when I was a kid).  I certainly don't crawl around them... YEUK!

I clearly got which way round the Rack/Adhesion locos were arranged wrong... Did they have seperate regulators/throttles for the two engines?

IIRC at least originally the fairlies had a regulator that could be linked together or seperated for each engine.  Again IIRC JIC Boyd reckoned that on wet rail the lead engine could be slipped to clean the rail while the rear engine pushed.  We used to do exactly the same thing with all the Southern 3rd rail electric units up to and including the E series stock... the lead unit would spin and clean the rail while the rear unit(s) shoved.  Sounded awful at times but the trains got where they were going... as far as i know they were so substantially built that they did themsleves little damage.  It was a regular way of working for years.  The modern things give up and sulk if you fart near the computer in them.  My favourites were the 4 Subs.  Absolute brutes that could smash through thick ice.  (Pity one of them broke one of my fingers).

I had forgotten the US boosters.  Would you agree that they effectively did the same thing as slugs?

[EXCELSIORSS]

As an articulated man myself, I can at least put my two cents in...

The Rivarossi H-8 is sexy. It is by far my favorite. It runs sweet, and in my opinion, I think it has brass quality detail. It is the most detailed plastic engine I have ever seen.

The Proto Y-3 is nice. Also runs great, and detail is awesome, just hate that stupid wire bell cord, which is almost impossible to get back into the hole. I took mine off.

I also like the Rivarossi line that came out in the late nineties, which, while not as detailed, runs good and still looks pretty good. I have the Big Boy, 2 Challengers, a Cab forward, and a Y-6b, all of them have held up good and I still enjoy running them.

BLI-PCM - I have the Paragon A class, and a newly aquired Y6-b, both look awesome, sound great. My only problem is that the PCM Y looks so good, it makes my old Rivarossi look a little dated.

Finally, an engine that doesn't seem to get a lot of press, but is one of my favorites, is the Bachmann 2-6-6-2. I can't for the life of me figure why they stopped making it. This is a beautiful engine, it runs smoothly, is detailed on the level of the protos and is close to being as nice as the Rivarossi H-8. If you can find one of these little gems on e-bay or a train show, snatch one up, you won't be dissappointed.

[TwinZephyr]

Somebody please make a Quadraplex or maybe even a Quintuplex for Mopar Man.

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/quadruplex/quadrapl.htm

Who cares whether or not the prototype would have been successful - the model would be the biggest baddest ever.  Imagine the cars it could pull if it were built like a Bowser.

[oleirish]

Try the Mantua  HO 2-6-6-2 W/tender this is a fine loco Mine is detaled a little and pulls real strong,I also have an rivrossi(spelling)Y-6B it is a good runner also.but could use more detail.

JIM

[R. T. POTEET]

. . . . . . . . . . Is a Y-3 all most the same engine as my Y6b? . . . . . . . . . .

The Y3 was the USRA heavy articulated - the 2-6-6-2 was the light one - and N&W got almost fifty percent of the initial production; surprisingly the Y3 was derived directly from N&Ws own Y2a. Over the course of the next two decades N&W refined the Y3 design culminating in the Y6 design of 1936 and the ultimate of compound articulation, the Y6b of 1948.