THE magazine of railroading

SEARCH TRAINSMAG.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Santa Fe Class 2-10-10-2 Steam Engines

7398 views
40 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
ACY
  • Member since
    August, 2013
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by ACY on Monday, July 11, 2016 12:30 PM

I never understood why 9000 was sent to California for preservation, since the class never operated there in regular service. It has always seemed that an oil burner such as 5511, and/or an oil burning Challenger or 4-8-4 would be more appropriate, since they did commonly operate in California.  Wouldn't the 9000 be more appropriately displayed in Cheyenne, or nearby?

Tom 

  • Member since
    January, 2015
  • 771 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Monday, July 11, 2016 8:41 PM

There are so many "what if" and "why didn't they" situations.

Why didn't SP preserve 4-8-4 4458 or 4459 - the roller-bearing-equipped units - say one in LA and one in Oakland or Fresno?

Why didn't UP preserve a 4-8-4 in Southern CA, or another Challenger?

Why didn't NP preserve an A-4 or A-5 4-8-4 in Minneapolis?

What if NYC had preserved one each of their "Big Three" - a J3a Hudson, an L4b Mohawk and a Niagara?

What if GN had preserved an R-2 2-8-8-2, or Southern a couple more PS-4 Pacifics, or MILW an F-7 4-6-4 Baltic or CNW a 4-8-4 Zeppelin?

What if IC had preserved 4-8-2 2613?

I am sure everyone can add to the list.

The sad thing is saving those locomotives would not even have moved the needle on the carrier's bottom line in the year they were scrapped.

Thankfully UP 9000 is around in Southern CA and SP 4460 is around in St. Louis and many others are out there, far from home rails but at least still around.

But indeed - What if????

 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 11,067 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, July 14, 2016 10:45 AM

kgbw49

There are so many "what if" and "why didn't they" situations.

Why didn't SP preserve 4-8-4 4458 or 4459 - the roller-bearing-equipped units - say one in LA and one in Oakland or Fresno?

Why didn't UP preserve a 4-8-4 in Southern CA, or another Challenger?

Why didn't NP preserve an A-4 or A-5 4-8-4 in Minneapolis?

What if NYC had preserved one each of their "Big Three" - a J3a Hudson, an L4b Mohawk and a Niagara?

What if GN had preserved an R-2 2-8-8-2, or Southern a couple more PS-4 Pacifics, or MILW an F-7 4-6-4 Baltic or CNW a 4-8-4 Zeppelin?

What if IC had preserved 4-8-2 2613?

I am sure everyone can add to the list.

The sad thing is saving those locomotives would not even have moved the needle on the carrier's bottom line in the year they were scrapped.

Thankfully UP 9000 is around in Southern CA and SP 4460 is around in St. Louis and many others are out there, far from home rails but at least still around.

But indeed - What if????

I suspect the bigger reason locomotives weren't saved in the locations you named is that there was very little if any civic desire in those communities to provide locations for them to be preserved.  Saving locomotives requires the cooperation of both the carriers and the communities.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    January, 2015
  • 771 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Thursday, July 14, 2016 11:29 AM

Sad but true!

ACY
  • Member since
    August, 2013
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by ACY on Thursday, July 14, 2016 12:24 PM

Lack of a location or willing recipient was a factor in many cases, but it sure doesn't explain the B&O Railroad's major miscommunication when it scrapped the last EM-1 2-8-8-4 after promising it to ITS OWN MUSEUM!

Tom 

  • Member since
    November, 2015
  • 516 posts
Posted by ATSFGuy on Monday, March 20, 2017 5:36 PM

Have any 2-10-10-2 Steam Locomotives been redone and released in plastic yet?

RME
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 1,243 posts
Posted by RME on Tuesday, March 21, 2017 10:02 AM

ATSFGuy
Have any 2-10-10-2 Steam Locomotives been redone and released in plastic yet?

Lord, no!  How many of them do you think you would sell?

I don't even think there's much of a market in specialty brass for one of these things.  Here is a page showing the Westside brass model and you can guess how long it's been without a reissue...

Even ATSF didn't keep them long (recognizing that as with the 'added motor units' from Baldwin, the articulated chassis could be much better used under its own separate boiler -- the firebox on the 2-10-10-2s was barely adequate even for the 2-10-2 directly, tandem compound water-rate saving or not). 

Is there a market in plastic for an early-20th-Century heavy locomotive with weird firebox that can't be run effectively on almost any layout?  I think the right answer would have to be to publish Shapeways files that would let interested modelers make originals to rework for epoxy resin castings -- or see if one of the boutique makers like Dave Grover's Eddystone would do the basic work for you.

Yes, I'd like to see someone make these in a cost-effective form.  No, I don't think anyone making these would sell them at any approximation of a cost-effective cost.  Nor do I think you'd get enough reservations to convince any for-profit manufacturer to invest the time and money to make a production quantity.

ACY
  • Member since
    August, 2013
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by ACY on Tuesday, March 21, 2017 6:17 PM

The Santa Fe 2-10-10-2 was produced as a limited production HO brass model some time around the 1970's. I understand it could get around curves in one direction ony because the piping got in the way. I don't know what the minimum radius was. The prototype engines were impractical, short-lived, used in very limited territory, and pretty ugly in the opinion of most observers. With all of those things going against them, it's not likely that any manufacturer will produce a model nowadays.

Tom 

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 12,258 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:46 PM

AC, I really admire you as a sorce of solid information!

  • Member since
    July, 2004
  • 2,145 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Friday, March 24, 2017 8:52 PM

RME
 

I don't even think there's much of a market in specialty brass for one of these things.  Here is a page showing the Westside brass model and you can guess how long it's been without a reissue...

 

 

The brass model as much as shows what was wrong with the prototype and why it didn't steam right.  To say a locomotive is ugly is not a technical argument, but it perhaps reflects an intuition that the proportions are out of whack.

There are certain rules steam locomotive designers came up with regarding relative proportions of the grate, firebox, tubes, and firebox sections of the boiler.  If that model does one thing, it gives one a better sense of those proportions than the few extant photographs.  The model proportions suggest that this locomotive was just "thrown" together without taking those design rules into account.

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
  • Member since
    January, 2015
  • 771 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Friday, March 24, 2017 9:52 PM

We have to remember this was before they really understood the power of the large firebox...

Image result for santa fe 2-10-10-2

The size of the 2-10-10-2 firebox is miniscule even compared to the later Santa Fe 2-10-2 firebox...

Image result for santa fe 2-10-10-2

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Trains free email newsletter
NEWS » PHOTOS » VIDEOS » HOT TOPICS & MORE
GET OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Connect with us
ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER

Search the Community