Texas Zepher andrechapelonIn order to make sense of that scenario, you'd also have to assume that there was some fairly extensive and relatively heavy duty narrow gauge railroading going on, which wasn't the case. What narrow gauge lines that existed didn't have enough impact on the war effort to be a problem in search of a solution. I did not make that assumption. Doing so then puts the scenario into the realm of re-imagining the entire USA railroad infrastructure. Doing that really opens the box to do what so many people do with their model railroads and just "do what ever I want because I want to". For which there can be no meaningful debate nor discussion because the assumptions compound into infinite possibilities for which everyone is exactly right.
andrechapelonIn order to make sense of that scenario, you'd also have to assume that there was some fairly extensive and relatively heavy duty narrow gauge railroading going on, which wasn't the case. What narrow gauge lines that existed didn't have enough impact on the war effort to be a problem in search of a solution.
Texas Zepher andrechapelonThere's no reason a 2-8-8-2 couldn't have been designed for meter gauge, 3'6" gauge or even 3 ft gauge. After all I don't think that anyone would disagree with that. The point is that we are looking at this as if we are USRA facing WWI crises. We don't have time nor money nor even interest in experimenting making something new.
andrechapelonThere's no reason a 2-8-8-2 couldn't have been designed for meter gauge, 3'6" gauge or even 3 ft gauge. After all
In order to make sense of that scenario, you'd also have to assume that there was some fairly extensive and relatively heavy duty narrow gauge railroading going on, which wasn't the case. What narrow gauge lines that existed didn't have enough impact on the war effort to be a problem in search of a solution.
In any case, there was no need to "re-invent" the narrow gauge wheel as the major US builders already had experience building narrow gauge locomotives for overseas as well as the US and already had designs that could have been adapted had it been necessary. There would have been no need to experiment as the engineering is pretty straightforward.
It's not that big a deal as long as you know the limitations of loading gauge, rail weight and bridge strength. Like I said, the meter gauge East African 59th class Garrats were substantially more powerful than the standard gauge NSWGR AD60's, which were about as powerful as USRA Heavy 2-8-2's, but needed the weight spread out to operate on rather light rail.
36" gauge track is 64% the gauge of standard. 64% of a USRA Heavy 2-8-2's T.E is 38,400. In order to get that tractive effort and not violate the 25% rule (T.E. <= 1/4 of weight on drivers), the locomotive would need to have at least 153,600 lbs on the drivers or an axle load of a shade over 19 tons. You'd end up with a locomotive weighing somewhere around 200,000 lbs. 48 to 51 inch drivers would give it reasonable speed capability. I don't have the formula for calculating tractive effort off the top of my head, but given 200 PSI and 48" drivers, I'd hazard a guess that the cylinder bore and stroke would be somewhere in the vicinity of 20x26 inches give or take.
It ain't magic
Andre
Who here knows what the USRA design process was? I think I read that they were new specific designs, even if they were based on experience learned from the prior 10-15 years (once the trailing truck was common on new construction). Since they even shared boiler components such as firebox, either directly or using lengthened or shortened versions, between engine types, they could not have simple used existing designs. In light of that how much more would a 2-6-6-2 or 2-8-8-2 been experimental than the standard gauge ones?
I could see a light and heavy 2-8-2 with outside frames. Possibly a Very Light 2-8-2 with inside frames, for light rail and narrow clearance would be included. 2-6-0 and 2-8-0 would cover switching duties, if needed. A 2-6-6-2 would be the forward thinking big engine.
Didn’t USRA designs use a conical boiler, or was it a mild wagon top? Who can confirm what was used?
andrechapelonAnd just because I can't resist it, an SAR 24 class 2-8-4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:243696-Beaconsfield-1983-Apr-13-HGG.jpg Not a particularly large engine, but one that has the look of all business and is roughly the equivalent of a D&RGW K-28. I like the looks of the 24 better, however.
To each his own, Andre...
But I'll bet that SAR loco looks awfully tippy to someone used to getting up and down the mountain in a "Sport Model." It looks like it grew legs compared to a Rio Grande Mike. Maybe legs like that look good on a model (the female kind), not so sure here...
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
"JaBear" andrechapelonAnd if you want some really large 3'6" gauge locomotives, try South Africa.. Yes you're dead right Andre, though for the sake of the discussion I limited myself to what I knew was available pre WWl. I can't find any exact information as to what the South African loading gauge was, but it was certainly far more generous than NZs. Of course loading gauge would have had a big influence on USRA narrow gauge designs. Cheers, the Bear.
andrechapelonAnd if you want some really large 3'6" gauge locomotives, try South Africa..
Yes you're dead right Andre, though for the sake of the discussion I limited myself to what I knew was available pre WWl.
I can't find any exact information as to what the South African loading gauge was, but it was certainly far more generous than NZs.
Of course loading gauge would have had a big influence on USRA narrow gauge designs.
Cheers, the Bear.
Loading gauge has a big impact on any design. IIRC, British loading gauge limits heights to around 13 feet give or take and widths of 8 1/2 feet give or take. The larger South African engines would barely fit from what I'm able to gather. Well, whaddaya know. Ask and Google shall provide: http://tinyurl.com/kawe4sc
The USATC 0-6-0T ( "Dock Tank") had to able to operate anywhere, including the UK. A number of these were used by the Southern (later Southern Region of BR) during and after WWII. As for the USATC S160 2-8-0, the design was such that they could be used in Britain as well as on the Continent. Here's a preserved example on the West Somerset Railway http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K80xeChTfuE Hornby/Rivarossi has released the 0-6-0T http://www.hornbyinternational.com/en/rivarossi/2823-usatc-steam-locomotive-road-number-1948-model-prepared-for-the-use-of-a-sound-decoder.html and DJH has the S160 (for about $500 USD) http://www.djhmodelloco.co.uk/prodpage.asp?productid=3073
A lot of my fellow Americans associate narrow gauge with laid back rural operations using teakettle engines, but there were a number of 3'6" gauge systems that were every bit mainline operations including Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, Western Australia, Queensland, etc. Were one to scale up the larger South African engines to "standard" gauge, they'd actually be larger than most North American engines.
There's no reason a 2-8-8-2 couldn't have been designed for meter gauge, 3'6" gauge or even 3 ft gauge. After all, East African Railways and Harbours had a meter gauge 4-8-2 + 2-8-4 Garratt that could produce over 83,000 lbs of tractive effort and weighed over 500,000 lbs with a length in excess of 100 feet. I don't care who you are, that's a big engine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9judxRz41_k On a comparative basis, the EAR 59th class Garratt was about as powerful as a 3800 class Santa Fe 2-10-2. When you consider that meter gauge is about 70% of "standard", that's really impressive.
Actually, when you stop and look at it, a pair of D&RGW K-36 2-8-2's are nearly as powerful as a USRA Heavy 2-10-2 and would have a similar tonnage rating under the same operating conditions.
Just as an aside, it's kind of funny that the "standard" gauge NSWGR AD-60 Garratt was only rated at 60,000 lbs T.E (about the same as an SAR GMA or GMAM Garratt), while the EAR meter gauge 59th class had nearly 40% more T.E.
And just because I can't resist it, an SAR 24 class 2-8-4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:243696-Beaconsfield-1983-Apr-13-HGG.jpg Not a particularly large engine, but one that has the look of all business and is roughly the equivalent of a D&RGW K-28. I like the looks of the 24 better, however.
Hard to believe these SAR 25 and 25NC 4-8-4's are "narrow" gauge, isn't it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VQNBk3Ecys
Mikec6201Going with the simple is better idea I believe it would have been realistic that the WPB would have chosen something like the EBT 2-8-2's . The #12 was delivered in 1911 although it was a bit smaller than the following locos. The slightly larger #12 and #14 were delivered in 1912 and 1914. They were IMO simpler than the D&RGW K locos and more in line with the USRA
The D&RG Consolidated class is even an easier case to make as there were 67 of them.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Have fun with your trains
Another thing is the USATC S118 class of WWII. I don't think there are any technical reasons why the class couldn't have been built during WWI.
Going with the simple is better idea I believe it would have been realistic that the WPB would have chosen something like the EBT 2-8-2's . The #12 was delivered in 1911 although it was a bit smaller than the following locos. The slightly larger #12 and #14 were delivered in 1912 and 1914. They were IMO simpler than the D&RGW K locos and more in line with the USRA ideas.....Interesting discussion.....Mike
The 4-6-0 was not obsolete for certain tasks in 1918. Many were built for the PRR up to 1926 (standard gauge, G-5, some for LIRR) and the British Black 5 was built until some years after WWII!
LensCapOn Would the USRA produce an un modern design like a 4-6-0? War production 2-8-0 were produced for use in Europe, but not by the USRA.
Would the USRA produce an un modern design like a 4-6-0? War production 2-8-0 were produced for use in Europe, but not by the USRA.
To answer the question - PRR G5s, built in 1923. If the USRA had ever recognized the need for commuter service they would have recognized the value of a big boilered, 68 inch drivered 4-6-0.
Actually, passenger power was NOT a USRA priority. The first USRA loco was a light 2-8-2, B&O 4500, delivered on 4 July 1918. None of the 4-X-2s were delivered until 1919, by which time the Armistice was history.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
LensCapOn For those who think a 2-6-6-2 would not handle the tight curves and steep grades of narrow gauge lines, may I remind you of the Unitah Railway?
For those who think a 2-6-6-2 would not handle the tight curves and steep grades of narrow gauge lines, may I remind you of the Unitah Railway?
The Unitah Railway received their first articulated in 1926, after the USRA wound down. At the time, they were using shays to conquer the pass.
Because this is a war emergency, I doubt that any new designs would have been built. Export models are another interesting thought, and in my mind would have been the way to go.
Texas Zepher Were I on the USRA board I would have taken the successful Baldwin 125 design (D&RGW K-26) {or EBT #16 - nice but not at the time proven} and Baldwin 70 (D&RGW C-19) and said there you go. Actually I would have allowed them to make a few upgrades for the last 10 years of technology 1903 to 1913, and told them to upsize the drivers on the 125 by a few inches for the sake of work on dual gauge track. This would have resulted in almost a 140 and almost 93 class locomotives. The main thing that would label these fictional locomotives as USRA would be the details and features. Once again I would disagree. Our purpose at USRA is to make things efficient, reliable, and quick to the manufacture floor.
Were I on the USRA board I would have taken the successful Baldwin 125 design (D&RGW K-26) {or EBT #16 - nice but not at the time proven} and Baldwin 70 (D&RGW C-19) and said there you go. Actually I would have allowed them to make a few upgrades for the last 10 years of technology 1903 to 1913, and told them to upsize the drivers on the 125 by a few inches for the sake of work on dual gauge track. This would have resulted in almost a 140 and almost 93 class locomotives.
The main thing that would label these fictional locomotives as USRA would be the details and features.
I think TZ calls it just about right (he meant a K-27, not a K-26, though.) Fact is, the USRA rather ignored the narrowgauge lines in comparison to its focus on moving war material on the standard gauge. That's why you didn't see any locos along the line of this topic in the history books. If there were circumstances requiring such locos, yep, most likely a lot like the K-27 class as the most modern and successful design of the time -- except for the compound feature, which was deleted upon rebuilding. During a war, they would have just built them simple, as they issues were already evident by then.
There was little call for handling more traffic on the NG. If there was, it would've been more of the same, like a K-27, to add capacity. Bigger locos by themselves just don't help much. You need the track, bridges, turntables, and other infrastructure upgraded as well to support any significant increase -- all of which tend to have longer lead times to put in place, not something you do when fighting a war unless it turns into a long one.
Another place to look would be Baldwin and other export production. By the time of WWI, American narrowgauge lines had been in retreat for a decade or more. The export market was going strong and offered a wide variety of options. If the K wasn't up to the task, something might have been found among the offerings in the export catalog. Just not too big, for the reasons stated above.
"JaBear" Gidday, coming from New Zealand where narrow gauge (3'6") is the norm, I would think that by WWl there would have been more than enough experience at the likes of Baldwin that your third option would have been a "goer" with of course 'standardized fittings. A link to narrow gauge locomotives built by Baldwin for the NZGR. http://www.baldwin-steam.org.nz/loco/classes.html As for wheel arrangements, well hminky 's link shows what was possible, and that list doesn't appear to even list Garratts, though they were still in the developmental stage pre WWl . I do wonder if a USRA list would have included tank engines? Schuylkill and Susquehanna "But I ain't never seen no phantom narrow gauge 4-8-2". A link to a very early narrow gauge 4-8-2 though I suspect, as USRA locos, they would been built as simples. http://www.trainweb.org/nzsteam/x_class.html LensCapOnMaybe no one cares at this date, Maybe not but an interesting exercise of the grey matter on a quiet Sunday evening. Cheers, the Bear.
Gidday, coming from New Zealand where narrow gauge (3'6") is the norm, I would think that by WWl there would have been more than enough experience at the likes of Baldwin that your third option would have been a "goer" with of course 'standardized fittings.
A link to narrow gauge locomotives built by Baldwin for the NZGR.
http://www.baldwin-steam.org.nz/loco/classes.html
As for wheel arrangements, well hminky 's link shows what was possible, and that list doesn't appear to even list Garratts, though they were still in the developmental stage pre WWl . I do wonder if a USRA list would have included tank engines?
Schuylkill and Susquehanna "But I ain't never seen no phantom narrow gauge 4-8-2".
A link to a very early narrow gauge 4-8-2 though I suspect, as USRA locos, they would been built as simples. http://www.trainweb.org/nzsteam/x_class.html
LensCapOnMaybe no one cares at this date,
And if you want some really large 3'6" gauge locomotives, try South Africa.. The 15F class 4-8-2's were rated at just over 42,000 lbs TE at 75% boiler pressure. A number of SAR 4-8-2's were built in the USA, although not the 15F's, an example of which is shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU6ff1Apb2Q
Baldwin also turned out some meter gauge 2-10-2's and 2-10-4's for Brazil. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drquakTIPNw
The SAR was also 3'6' and ran modern steam including 4-8-4s that looked like Niagras.
I think that IF the USRA designed narrow gauge locomotives, they would use the latest technology of the times, so I think a lot of the parts such as headlights would be the same as standard gauge. Some perhaps scaled down
For wheel arrangements I think there would be: Shay (light and heavy), 2-6-0, 2-6-2, 4-6-0, 2-8-2, and 2-6-6-2. The Shays for steep grades, the 2-6-0 for lightly built lines, the 4-6-0 for passengers, the rest for freight on the more robust lines. At least one of these should run on any of the 3 ft gauges.
Enjoy
Paul
I love narrow gauge locomotive's uniqueness as they are now. My vote would be for not having USRA design them as I like them as they are. I realize this is a fantasy topic, so my fantasy is that there is no fantasy!
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
Nice little loco - and not too radically different from USRA design. Of course, with those roller skate wheel drivers it couldn't have been anyone's idea of a speed demon.
Going back to the original premise, the USRA was intended to move WWI wartime traffic faster and more efficiently. To that end, providing stndard gauge main lines with simple, standardized locomotives with commonality of spare parts made sense. Would giving the same to narrow gauge feeders, none of which carried massive amounts of war-essential commodities, have made economic or business sense? Consider, too, that there was a huge difference in the characteristics of the various narrow gauge lines. I doubt that they would have benefited from standardization applied as a stone tablet from Zion.
I rather suspect that, had the USRA extended its attention to the slim gauge lines, it would have standard-gauged the more essential ones and abandoned the rest. Maybe we should give thanks that the Federales kept their cotton-pickin' hands off the sub-standard gauge carriers.
So, what kind of single, standard locomotive could have handled the heavy mineral traffic of the East Broad Top, the agricultural and mineral loads of the Grande, the Uintah's 68 degree curves and 8% grades, the 'tied in knots' route of the West Side (71 miles of track to cover 18 miles as the buzzard flies) and all the others I haven't mentioned. Sort of like trying to design a single-size uniform for every pre-teen girl in Nevada, based on one woman's 'working in the mine' outfit. Say What???
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with standardized JNR locos and definitely un-standardized locos where the JNR doesn't run)
Texas Zepher hminky
hminky
[Cue theme from Hunt for Red October]
Y' know, I seen me a mermaid once. I even seen me a shark eat an octopus. But I ain't never seen no phantom narrow gauge 4-8-2.
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
You guys need to get out more:
http://narrowmind.railfan.net/#482
Harold
Schuylkill and SusquehannaI would think that USRA would have stuck with the same wheel arrangements (0-6-0, 0-8-0, 4-6-2, 2-8-2, 4-8-2, 2-10-2, 2-6-6-2, and 2-8-8-2).
LensCapOn3) Anoint a few models from a major builders catalog.
I feel this would be the most likely option. I really can't see a 2-6-6-2 or anything larger, due to weight and curves. A 2-4-4-2 maybe...Because of the curves, I suspect a 2-10-2 would not have been designed either...
When did the narrow gauge steam built for WWII come out? Was there any built for WWI? Because standard war designs in the 1940s were shipped to the WP&Y...
Great thoughts!
I did not check boiler diameter for them but, since the K37 class used std gauge 2-8-0 boilers, the USRA 0-6-0 boiler seemed small enough. The grate area is close and the models I have seen also give that feeling.
I never thought the entire range of wheel arrangements would be used, the 4-6-2 seemed unlikely for one. Part of the game is which wheel arrangements would be needed. It would be nice to see a 4-8-2 some time.
Any opinion on inside vs. outside frame? EBT and D&RGW are examples of each.
I don't know the dimensions offhand, but I would think that the limiting factor on using boiler and firebox designs would be boiler diameter. I think that a USRA 0-6-0 or 0-8-0 heavy boiler would be much to wide for a 3 foot gauge locomotive. Remember that there have to be running boards along the sides too!
I would think that USRA would have stuck with the same wheel arrangements (0-6-0, 0-8-0, 4-6-2, 2-8-2, 4-8-2, 2-10-2, 2-6-6-2, and 2-8-8-2).
The main thing that would label these fictional locomotives as USRA would be the details and features. (From "A Modeler's Guide to USRA Locomotives, January 2011 Model Railroader.)
I would add a couple more to the list (from http://www.steamlocomotive.com/misc/usra.php)
Many of these characteristics could be carried over to narrow gauge locomotives.
A USRA 3-foot gauge 4-8-2 might have:
This would create a very distinctive and USRA-like locomotive, even though there was no prototype.
A detail-oriented modeler would want to create locomotive diagrams for all wheel arrangements, and use as many of the same parts for each as possible (just like the USRA did on the real ones). In addition, USRA would have probably use some of the standard gauge locomotive fittings on the narrow gauge locomotives, so the fictional locomotives would have standard gauge bells, headlights, (smokestacks?) air compressors, pneumatic mechanisms for the firebox doors, power reverse, stoker, and grate shaker.