2-10-10-2 steam locomotive

[MidlandMike]

The AT&SF 2-10-10-2 were somewhat unique, in that they had two boilers.  The rear boiler was typical with firebox, but the front boiler was just firetubes heated by pass-thru from the back boiler.  The two boiler shells were joined by a metal accordion.  Cinders would get caught in the accordions, and the front boiler did not contribute much steam.  Within about three years they started splitting them up again into their original 2-10-2 's they came from.

[Overmod]

ndbprr

When I worked for Armco Steel in Middletown Ohio we had an N&W Y3 we used for emergency steam service.  We eventually gave it to the Illinois Train Museum.  For engines that look huge in pictures it was really very short and small including the cab.

To put this in perspective:  I believe ATSF was considering Y boilers on 4-8-4 chassis, which would have been Something To Behold...

[ndbprr]

When I worked for Armco Steel in Middletown Ohio we had an N&W Y3 we used for emergency steam service.  we eventually gave it to the Ilolinois Train Museum.  For engines that look huge in pitures it was really very short and small including the cab.

[Overmod]

John-NYBW

I thought the whole idea of articulated steamers was to eliminate the need for fixed 10 and 12 wheeled driver sets.

The whole idea of high-speed, simple articulateds, an idea pioneered by Baldwin with a pair of 2-6-6-2s in the very early 1930s, is what replaced the basic idea of 'three barrels of steam' and 10-12 coupled wheels as big fast-freight power.  Up to that point, simple articulateds were just more thermally-efficient drag engines and pushers.

Note that there is a reason most of the high-speed and highest-horsepower articulateds were only six-coupled.  That was enough to haul any train it could start.

At just about this time, the AMC came up with the C&O T-1 2-10-4, which with its PRR J1 and J1a half-sisters and the ATSF 5001/5011 class 2-10-4s, showed what a 10-coupled rigid wheelbase by itself could do for high-speed traffic, and of course the nearly-stillborn PRR Q2s developed more horsepower (at speed) than any other American locomotive -- Alleghenies included.

It surprises me that a 2-10-10-2 loco was ever conceived much less built.

As a pusher for specific service on the then-new Virginian, it made eminent sense.  For fun you can look at the ATSF 2-10-10-2 (which you can actually see running on YouTube in one of the Hazards of Helen cliffhangers!) which just didn't have enough firebox to get the job done. For real fun, look at the Southern experiments with motor tenders, and then their approach to hump power that paired a 2-10-2 with no less than two 3-axle auxiliary locomotives replacing the tender trucks.  (Now there was something that might be surprising!)

What actually happened was that train consists changed away from slow-but-economical through the late 1920s, although the real proof didn't come until Loree was replaced on the D&H, and within no more than a couple of years the railroad had become a high-speed example of why 4-6-6-4s get the job done better even in terms of economical operation...

[Overmod]

John-NYBW

I thought the whole idea of articulated steamers was to eliminate the need for fixed 10 and 12 wheeled driver sets.

The whole idea of high-speed, simple articulateds, an idea pioneered by Baldwin with a pair of 2-6-6-2s in the very early 1930s, is what replaced the basic idea of 'three barrels of steam' and 10-12 coupled wheels as big fast-freight power.  Up to that point, simple articulateds were just more thermally-efficient drag engines and pushers.

At just about this time, the AMC came up with the C&O T-1 2-10-4, which with its PRR J1 and J1a half-sisters and the ATSF 5001/5011 class 2-10-4s, showed what a 10-coupled rigid wheelbase by itself could do for high-speed traffic, and of course the nearly-stillborn PRR Q2s developed more horsepower (at speed) than any other American locomotive -- Alleghenies included.

It surprises me that a 2-10-10-2 loco was ever conceived much less built.

As a pusher for specific service on the then-new Virginian, it made eminent sense.  For fun you can look at the ATSF 2-10-10-2 (which you can actually see running on YouTube in one of the Hazards of Helen cliffhangers!) which just didn't have enough firebox to get the job done.

What actually happened was that train consists changed away from slow-but-economical through the late 1920s, although the real proof didn't come until Loree was replaced on the D&H, and within no more than a couple of years the railroad had become a high-speed example of why 4-6-6-4s get the job done better even in terms of economical operation...

[selector]

Two other considerations: the right of way needed to sustain these heavy articulated beasts at speeds suitable for pax ops, and the fact that few of them would have had voluntary crew at those speeds. I don't know my steamers well enough to claim definitively that the articulated ones capable of passenger speeds were seldom rideable at speeds much above 65 mph across the various models, but that's been what my anecdotal reading tells me.  The duplexes and Northern class were much better, even at speeds approaching 100 mph.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

John-NYBW

I thought the whole idea of articulated steamers was to eliminate the need for fixed 10 and 12 wheeled driver sets. It surprises me that a 2-10-10-2 loco was ever conceived much less built.

 

Yes, but these locos were drag freight locos and had very small drivers, 56"/57", so the rigid wheelbase of each set was only about 19', no longer than many other locos with only four axles per drive set.

Only 20 examples were built, 10 by the ATSF in 1911, and 10 by ALCO for the Virginian in 1918.

Very slow, but very powerful.

Sheldon

[John-NYBW]

I thought the whole idea of articulated steamers was to eliminate the need for fixed 10 and 12 wheeled driver sets. It surprises me that a 2-10-10-2 loco was ever conceived much less built.

[BEAUSABRE]

I would disagree. The VGN's loco was immediately sent back to the builder to become a 2-8-8-0 and 2-8-2, "Drury (1993) notes that compared to the Erie engines, the 700 "was slower and ran out of steam faster[!]...It never made a successful trip," while the Erie machines lasted unchanged for over a decade, so they can be judged a relative success Erie 2-8-8-8-2/4 "Triplex" Locomotives in the USA (steamlocomotive.com) (and the Double Decapods put in at least 30 years). What killed the Erie locomotives was the conversion of the Erie from a drag era road to a modern high speed route with the purchase of 105 Sixty-Nine inch drivered Berkshires Erie 2-8-4 "Berkshire" Locomotives in the USA (steamlocomotive.com) in 1927-29 which rendered pushers unneccessary. "This fleet of 105 "Berkshires" changed the Erie from a classic drag freight operation to a fast freight railroad in just two years."

[Overmod]

And, ahem, the Virginian Triplex...

[BEAUSABRE]

Just to clear up a bit, the Double Decapods were never intended to be road locomotoves, but to be helpers - two would push from the rear while a 2-8-8-2, serving as the road power to Roanoke, pulled.                                                "The AEs performed well for 30 years, first as pushers for the 2.11% grade at Elmore until replaced by electric engines, later as helpers on other grades. EW King, Jr (in Drury, 1993) notes that except for the addition of Worthington BL feedwater heaters, these engines were never modified" - Locobase                                                                                                             "When working at their intended task, it was customary to have a 2-8-8-2 at the head of a 5500 ton train....Two 2-10-10-2's then pushed from the rear and the whole caravan moved upgrade noisily but steadily at 5.5 miles per hour. It must have been one of the greatest sights and sounds in railroading" - American Locomotives.                                                                     About their only peer as helpers were the Erie Triplexes.

[thomas81z]

i googled the 2-10-10-2 & this old thread came up

im buying a santa fe 2-10-10-2 & i plan on put in a can motor

and dcc & sound & down the road painting it up as 3001, a nod to

the HAZZARDS OF HELEN  movie shorts where the loco appeared

[modelsof1900]

asta

i had found this information on these two railroads website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-10-10-2#Virginian_Railway_class_AE  and i am trying to get more photos of these engines so i can attempt to build one for my layout or if anyone knows if these where ever made for a HO scale layout and if any do exist

Yet an addition.

You can find a lot of photos in the archives of Norfolk and Western Historical Society - http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/selectdocs.php?index=rs&id=897&Type=Picture

and click here for many, many drawings - http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/selectdocs.php?index=rs&id=897&Type=Drawing

[KHamrick]

First, I know this is a very old posting and no one will likely read it but I wanted to add this little bit that even google can't find-I believe the person you are talking about is "Speedy Johnson" He was commisioned to build a one-off for the railroad and he did-except he also made one for hismself.

Speedy was my Uncle's father-in-law and so i went over there a few times. The train eventually ended up in my uncle's house who was himself a collector and model railroader.

I just wanted to add that note because the man lived in a time before the internet.

[ndbprr]

The RMC editor was Bill Shopp and he in furiated many people with his good enough philosophy.  My firat E44 electrics were made from a Bill Shopp conversion of a U25C.  Some people started a group to stop him from converting other engines and he joined the group!  One I remember is the ATSF Bull Moose that had an expansion joint in the middle of the boiler.  he used a pipe nipple for that one.  They all looked pretty good to me when he was done.

[asta]

today i went to the local hobbyshop and talked to the owner and he told me it is alot easier to build a 2-8-8-8-2 or a 2-8-8-8-4 then a 2-10-10-2 he said to build a triplex i would need to get a IHC 2-8-8-2 and he could order me a extra driving mechanism and all i would have to do is modify the tender and figure out how to make it articulate and this will give the engine three power motors and i could have all three run on dcc.. where as if i were to model the 2-10-10-2 i would have to modify a lot more  and with my skills it may look like crap so i am going to try and do the 2-8-8-8-2 as soon as i can get the money thanks for all the help and if any one has more info or photos and other information that i could use on the project i will be greatful

 

 thanks

     david

[nfmisso]

A couple of comments here;

• Both the VGN and AT&SF 2-10-10-2 had ~57" drivers, so the Spectrum 2-10-2 is a good starting point.  The Bowser, Mantua, P2K and IHC 2-10-x all have ~62" drivers.
• The VGN 2-8-8-8-4 also had ~ 57" drivers.  The P2K 2-8-8-2 (two of them) would probably be the best starting point for the chassis.
• The Erie 2-8-8-8-2 had ~62" drivers.  Spectrum, Bowser, Mantua or IHC 2-8-0, Bowser, Mantua or IHC 2-8-2.
• There was an article in Mainline Modeler about the same time that the Spectrum N&W J was announced that showed techniques for building steam locomotive superstructures from plastic.  The focus of the article was a N&W J on the Plus chassis.  The Spectrum J, and later BLI J made this project superfluous, but the techniques are very valuable.

Good luck.

[twhite]

Back in the days when brass locomotives used to cost about $45 (so you KNOW I'm going back a while, LOL!)  Railroad Model Craftsman had an editor whose name I wish I could remember, but cannot--who used to take brass locos--yes, BRASS locos--and kitbash them into things you just would not believe.  One year, he tackled all of the Santa Fe articulateds and came up with 2-8-8-2's (the PFM 1950 Santa Fe Consolidations hacked and hewed together), then came up with a double-motored Santa Fe 2-10-10-2 that was just the DAMNDEST thing I ever saw!  He even did the flex-boiler 2-6-6-2 out of what I assume was a couple of Prairies. 

I was just thinking about those articles, since several of you have thought of 'kit-bashing' either a Virginian 2-10-10-2 or a Triplex.  I was wondering if you wrote RMC, if they might have files on those articles to give you some ideas.  They'd be back in the late 'fifties, I think.  It might be worth a try.  Wish my information was better, but I remember that I was still in high school, and every time I'd open a copy of RMC, my jaw would drop!  OHMYGAW, he's at it AGAIN! 

Tom

[CrossTrack Trains]

 I found a web page with the same pictures as the Baldwin book.

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

This site Shows the 2-8-8-8-2 & the 2-8-8-8-4

Ya they're Huge... 

[dinwitty]

I think the question was to build a 2-10-10-2

 Bowser has a 2-10-2 but its wheel diameters might be too big.

Someone made a VGN triplex using mantua mechanisms and scratching the rest, recently a model of the month award in MR I think.

This is why I wish some of these model makers didnt go outa business because the posssibilites of bashing is great to do these things.

Prolly the best current example of lokies I wouldnt be afraid to bash around on  are the IHC engines. They arent always correct for the prototype they throw a roadname on so whadaheck...  Most stories I hear tho is they run fairly well.

I am looking into bashing a never built HOn3 2-8-8-2.

 

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

as the third set of drive wheels is ther a place that i can go to and buy a drive mechanism and then somehow add it to the usra 2-8-8-2?

This would indeed be a nice project, but at first I would say you need two USRA 2-8-8-2s, from the second one you need the front drive mechanism because the tender drive and the front drive of the triplex were identical to the best of my knowledge (or at least almost identical with hard to tell differences), but second the boiler would not be fat enough to look prototypically aside from the fact that many details would have to be changed. The tender body would have to be completely scratch built.

I think you would be more happy to save some money for future and look for a brass model. Yes probably expensive, but these special models retain their value, plus the detail and proportions ARE prototypical. If you could find an older one which is cheaper than the later ones you can add some omitted details like cab deck apron, or brake rods, and this is fun!

[asta]

as the third set of drive wheels is ther a place that i can go to and buy a drive mechanism and then somehow add it to the usra 2-8-8-2?

[Virginian]

The VGN Triplex was rebuilt into a 2-8-8-0 and a 2-8-2.  One reason some of their 2-8-8-2s looked like N&Ws is that they were third hand N&Ws.  The rest were similar to the USRA engines and N&W Y-2s, from which the USRAs were developed.  The Triplex was a compound engine, with the center engine feeding the front and rear engines (one off each cylinder).

The 800s were about the limit of Virginians successful trailblazing developmental steam engine activities.  For the most part, they stuck to tried and true technology.  They did know how to make money very well.

[asta]

my skills are not really that good... mainly at trying to figure out the scale size and getting it historically correct... i can build box cars and other eazy stuff but nothing complexe as this

[CAZEPHYR]

would it be possible to scrach build one of these 2-10-10-2's or the triplex? thses are interesting engines and i think they would be a great eye catcher on my layout

asta

Depending on your skills, you could start with a USRA 2-8-8-2 or Rivarossi 2-8-8-2 and add the  0-8-0 chassis under a cut down tender.  It would be an eye catcher for sure.  The most obvious problem with the Triplex is the second engine is almost under the cab, which eliminates the deep firebox area.  This is one reason they did not steam well.   It would require a lot of cutting and who knows, if you are good at kit bashing, post a picture.

Cheers

[asta]

would it be possible to scrach build one of these 2-10-10-2's or the triplex? thses are interesting engines and i think they would be a great eye catcher on my layout

[CAZEPHYR]

 

 

I found a web page with the same pictures as the Baldwin book.

 

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

 

[R. T. POTEET]

The Virginian was indeed a 2-8-8-8-4, where the Erie in the book is a 2-8-8-8-2 and was a compound locomotive.  Both looked somewhat alike since both were built by Baldwin.  It is an interesting locomotive since the tender is very small sitting on top of what looks like a 2-8-0.   

The book (Locomotives that Baldwin Built ) has a picture of the Viginian #700 on page 122.  It was built in 1916 as a simple engine, not compound and after a short time in testing was returned to Baldwin.  It is somewhat an odd looking engine and was very large for a 1916 era, but the boiler looks to have less steam capacity than a modern 4-8-4 like the Santa Fe 2900 class.  They were built for pusher service, but were not able to furnish steam for all six simple cylinders according to articles.

The book also has pictures of the Erie Triplex on page 121 and 124.

 Steam Locomotives   

The Virginian was often in the forefront of steam locomotive development, particularly in the area of LARGE articulated locomotives. The most (in)famous was the class XA Baldwin Triplex. This was built expressly for pusher service up the Clark's Gap grade. Unfortunately, its appetite for steam exceeded the capacity of its boiler. It was returned to Baldwin after extensive field trials, and was rebuilt into two smaller locomotives.

After I had posted my 12:25 PM response to this topic I decided to Google triplex locomotives and confirmed that the information I had provided in my last cited paragraph was, indeed, correct.  I also looked in the index of my Kalmbach Guide to North American Steam Locomotives and, wallah! there was an entry for - are you ready for this? - triplex locomotives; I have no idea why I even buy these books if I'm not going to use them.

It appears that Virginian was, indeed, at the forefront of steam locomotive experimentation; their 2-8-8-8-4 made a statement about what the technology of the day would not allow. In that regard it was not the salient failure which one might suppose. Furthermore, it appears as if their 2-8-8-2s were on a par with N&Ws famous 'y's. Beyond some reading about their electrification program I have not followed this railroad closely; this topic has, however, whetted my appetite to learn more about their steam locomotive program.

[CAZEPHYR]

I checked my Brown Book and the only Virginian 2-10-10-2's were the 200 imported by Custom Brass in 1979. LMB did import the Erie Triplex but not the Virginian one, that was imported by both PSC and WMC.
Rick

I know the Brown Book to be incredibly accurate so if it does not give recognition to any 2-10-10-2s except for the Custom Brass import then I, undoubtedly, have been laboring in a delusion.  I do remember being exposed to this particularly unique - and  extremely rare - wheel arrangement early in my model railroading experience: I thought for sure that it was through a model import but I appear to have been incorrect in this circumstance and I apologize to the readership for advancing misinformation. Perhaps my knowledge of this locomotive came from rhetoric in one of the model railroad magazines; whatever might be the case I am glad that this issue has been clarified by those with more knowledge than mine.

As a clarification on a somewhat related issue involving triplex wheel arrangements I believe that the Virginian triplex was a 2-8-8-8-4 wheel arrangement whereas the Erie triplex was a 2-8-8-8-2. I do remember a writer somewhere stating that the Virginian triplex succeeded in running out of steam before running out of yard limits! Having just stumbled in my facts I am advancing this information as a "I think" possibility which, admittedly, may be incorrect.

The Virginian was indeed a 2-8-8-8-4, where the Erie in the book is a 2-8-8-8-2 and was a compound locomotive.  Both looked somewhat alike since both were built by Baldwin.  It is an interesting locomotive since the tender is very small sitting on top of what looks like a 2-8-0.   

The book (Locomotives that Baldwin Built ) has a picture of the Viginian #700 on page 122.  It was built in 1916 as a simple engine, not compound and after a short time in testing was returned to Baldwin.  It is somewhat an odd looking engine and was very large for a 1916 era, but the boiler looks to have less steam capacity than a modern 4-8-4 like the Santa Fe 2900 class.  They were built for pusher service, but were not able to furnish steam for all six simple cylinders according to articles.

The book also has pictures of the Erie Triplex on page 121 and 124.

 Steam Locomotives   

The Virginian was often in the forefront of steam locomotive development, particularly in the area of LARGE articulated locomotives. The most (in)famous was the class XA Baldwin Triplex. This was built expressly for pusher service up the Clark's Gap grade. Unfortunately, its appetite for steam exceeded the capacity of its boiler. It was returned to Baldwin after extensive field trials, and was rebuilt into two smaller locomotives.