Sante Fe 2-10-10-2

[Anonymous]

Well...im sure from reading my posts some of you know that i dont model a "Real" railroad....but i do collect a lot of brass. And the brass that i collect is from whatever railroad the piece is that perks my interest.

Well i was surfing the net and i have the opportunity to purchase something that may or may not be a wise investment. It is a Brass Sante Fe 2-10-10-2...has anyone other then Westside mfgd these? If so how rare are they...to tell you the truith this is the first time i have ever hear of a 2-10-10-2 (and here i thought id seen everything LOL)....

[nfmisso]

The AT&SF and Virginian both had 2-10-10-2 locomotives. The SF units were made from 2-10-2 locomotives that they already had on hand, and extra 2-10-0 front engines provided by Baldwin. Very quickly, they were converted back to 2-10-2's - including the "new" front engines. They were not considered successful.

VGN's were built as 2-10-10-2's and were used until the end of steam in pusher service.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the info...i did manage to snap up on the model so i think i have something that is rather rare. I am surprised that the SF's units were not as successful as the VGN's....should i assume it was beacouse they were home built?

[ndbprr]

MR had drawings of the Vgn. version in the late 70's. The font set of cylinders were 48" diameter as the steam was used twice. It is my understanding that they were shipped with the cylinders and steam chest mounted after arrival as there were several railroads that had clearance problems on the route to the Vgn. The only reason they were successful on the Vgn. in my opinion isn't because of any superiority over the ATSF version but because the Vgn. was a coal hauler - period! As such they were into a drag freight role whereas the ATSF had a much longer higher speed need. When they were built the railroads had a philosophy of dragging every car in one train at 10mph rather than say two at 20mph. That was thought to be the most economical approach. ATSF by the way also had a couple of engines with a boiler that was hinged in the middle with an expansion type joint. Everything I have read indicates it was highly unsuccessful due to excessive leakage.

[Anonymous]

isn't that the gigantic engine with an articulated boiler? I'd sure like to see one of those

[Anonymous]

WOW! 2-10-10-2. I've heard of that, but I didn't think they made a model of it, let alone in brass. I wonder if they were as big as the Big Boy, or......**gulp**...... bigger.

[Anonymous]

There was an article with drawings in the May 1989 issue of MR.
According to that they didn't have hinged boilers and they were not nearly as large as Big Boy (total weight 882,450 pounds) but it must still have been considered a very large locomotive by 1911 standards.

[nfmisso]

The VGN 2-10-10-2 worked very well in the service it was intended for - pushing coal hoppers up to Clark's Gap. It was not intended to be, nor was it used as a road locomotive.

SF tried to use thier 2-10-10-2 as a road locomotive. Neither locomotive would do this. VGN had clearances for very large compound cylinders (48" dia), were as SF did not at the time.

[Anonymous]

That's a relief............**phew**...[:)] (almost thought the 'ole 4000 was beat)[:D]

[Anonymous]

Well ill let yall know what its like once i get it...i am actually rather excited that i decided to purchase it. I like having strange things...LOL. And by the pictures of the model id did NOT have an articulated boiler. But it looks to be a rather interesting piece.

[ndbprr]

I think my comment was misunderstood. The ATSF 2-10-10-2 DID NOT have a hinged boiler. That was another engine and I think it was a 2-8-8-2. Bill Schop kitbashed one in an RMC article way back like in the late 60's.

[AltonFan]

QUOTE: That's a relief............**phew**...[:)] (almost thought the 'ole 4000 was beat)[:D]

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Duluth, Messabi, and Iron Range's 2-8-8-4 Yellowstones were heavier than the Big Boy. I think they were longer, too.

[Anonymous]

Dont you mean the Canadian National (sub reportingmark DMIR)? LOL

[AltonFan]

When DM&IR had working Yellowstones, it was the property of United States Steel Company.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AltonFan

QUOTE: That's a relief............**phew**...[:)] (almost thought the 'ole 4000 was beat)[:D]

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Duluth, Messabi, and Iron Range's 2-8-8-4 Yellowstones were heavier than the Big Boy. I think they were longer, too.

WHAT?!?!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![:0][:0][:0]....................................[:D]