Baldwin 2-8-0 : how much did it pull& what was it used for?

[nbrodar]

While made by Alco, and not Baldwin, don't forget Delaware & Hudson's E-class "super" Consols. These amazing machines were as powerful, if not more so, then it's Challengers.

Nick

[Anonymous]

i know ALCo had "light" adn "heavy" 280's, but what about Baldwin? did they have 2 sizes as well?

[marknewton]

What's this nonsense about "light" and "heavy" 2-8-0s? ALCo and Baldwin both catalogued a range of 2-8-0s from very small to very large, none of which were described in contemporary sales literature as light or heavy.

The use of these terms during the steam era, as far as I'm aware, was largely confined to the USRA and their designs. However, it seems to be used willy-nilly these days by modellers who don't know any better, - but it's meaningless. A heavy locomotive on one road would be a light loco on another...

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nbrodar

While made by Alco, and not Baldwin, don't forget Delaware & Hudson's E-class "super" Consols. These amazing machines were as powerful, if not more so, then it's Challengers.

More powerful? More starting tractive effort than a Challenger, perhaps.
Less hosepower at speed, though.

[tomikawaTT]

The D&H 'Super' Consolidations (and their ultimate development, the 4-8-0 'L. F. Loree') were high pressure water tube boiler compounds with anthracite-burning (read huge) fireboxes carried entirely above the drivers. They really were high horsepower machines, although not very fast. The 'Loree' was a four-cylinder triple-expansion machine. All four cylinders drove on the second driver crankpin.

The joker in the deck on, "More starting tractive effort than a Challenger," was that the cross-compound 'Horatio Allen' was tested operating simple with tender booster cut in - 105,000 pounds. Nobody ever put a booster on a Challenger.

Although they were more successful than most experimental, one-of-a-kind steamers, they ultimately fell victim to changing conditions. The D&H changed from a pure coal-hauler to a bridge route, and low-speed drag locos had to give way to faster machinery. Thus the last steam the D&H bought were 4-8-4s and 4-6-6-4's, the cleanest, least cluttered and best looking non-streamlined steam locos ever built. (Yes, I'm biased.)

[nobullchitbids]

Well, the terms "light" and "heavy" do have a meaning as an extension of USRA practice, since those terms when applied to USRA referred to axle loadings. The heavies were better steamers because they had bigger boilers, but because their axle loadings exceded 60,000 lbs, they could be used only by railroads (like Erie) with exceptionally heavy rail. Light-rail lines like the (then) U.P. needed the "light" engines, and insofar as the USRA mikes were concerned, management didn't really want those.

[Anonymous]

Heavy and Light? Only for USRA designs. USRA never designed Consols.

BTW, I think READING railroad had the weightiest, most powerful consolidations, didn't they? And they beat out PRR's H-10a by only 1,000 lbs.

SMS

[tomikawaTT]

RDG had the heaviest, most powerful consolidations built in quantity. The three D&H superconsolidations were one-of-a-kind, rather heavier, had higher tractive effort and higher horsepower than any other 2-8-0. Both the D&H and RDG designs would have crushed the track structure of any railroad south of the Mason-Dixon line or west of the Mississippi River.

Incidentally, some of those RDG I10sa's provided the boilers for 4-8-4's!

[Anonymous]

I'll post a pic of my 2-8-0 if Bachmann ever sends it back.

[jhugart]

A Consolidation was used by the Quincy & Torch Lake railroad in the Houghton-Hancock area of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. This railroad was actually just a tentacle of the Quincy Mining Company (they argued at different times that it was a subsidiary under their total control and that it was a common carrier, and did so successfully each time), which did copper mining in the Keweenaw peninsula of the UP.

They were hauling wooden ore hoppers from the top of a hill down to the smelting works on a nearby lake, and had flatcars for transporting large pieces of mass copper.

[Anonymous]

I remember something now- it is UP #721, if that helps.

[Anonymous]

The "Great western Railway" of Colorado had 5 Baldwin 2-8-0 locomotives.Mainly used for hauling sugar beets and local freight,and sometimes short passenger trains,usually for company execs or special excurisions for the public.Two of their 2-8-0's are still in service today.#75 is at the Heber Creeper scenic railroad in Utah.and #52 is back at the Great Western railroad in colorado,{last I heard it's owner was going to start a tourist railroad using some of the GW"soriginal trackage.
The Great Western used steam trains in regular service up until 1974.They also have two other surviving steam locos by the way.#60 at the Blackhawk and western rwy in new Jersey.And their most famous locomotive #90 which is working the Strasburg rwy in Pennsylvania.

[Mark300]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dingoix

It's going to be lettered for IC (if Bachmann ever sends it back)

Which is good since an IC 2-8-0 is the prototype Bachmann originally used.

HTH

Happy Railroading

Mark

[Anonymous]

 As a general rule, any steam loco with 2 pilot (leading) wheels is designed for medium-low speeds (freight). Fast engines (passenger) had 4 leading wheels. These wheels weren't just decoarative, they had functions. 2 wheels helped lead the loco into curves, and 4 wheels did so even better.

There were exceptions, of course, and of course you won't get struck by lightning if you break the "rules".

Another thing that seems obvious to old codgers like me, but seems to be unknown to some younger folks is that pulling capacity is (roughly) proportional to the number of driving wheels. A 0-8-0 switcher could move just about the same number  of cars as a 4-8-4. Not as fast (the switchers drivers were smaller) nor as far (the boiler on a switcher couldn't generate enough steam long enough), but they could move looong strings of cars! 

 

 

 

 

[cacole]

One episode of the History Channel's Trains Unlimited series stated that the Baldwin 2-8-0 was designed to pull 30 loaded freight cars at 30 miles per hour.

There's a wealth of information about the 2-8-0 on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-8-0

 

[Shanawolf]

 A lot of 2-8-0s were the primary or only form of motive power for many shortlines and branches all accross the country and so did all duties required along the line.

In it's final decades the 18.5 mile long Buffalo Creek & Gauley out of Dudon WV (Accross the river from Cass WV) ran three 2-8-0s:#4, #13 & #14. One Baldwin and two ALCOs respectively.

They used them in an alternating fassion: one in the shop, one fired up as reserve for the day and one to do the day's work. They hauled nearly unit coal trains down from Widen WV and the Rich Run Mine. They also had mixed freight which served communities along the way, including lumber out of the mill at Swandale. The line had three pasanger cars running into the 1940's, an old wooden coach and two combines which most believe were ex-Pennsylvania cars with port hole windows.

The BC&G ran steam until it's closing in 1963 and all three locomotives are still around in various states of service of restoration.

[orsonroy]

Wow, there's a lot of bad information in this thread.

The 2-8-0 was a passenger locomotive because it had larger drivers.

The Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0 (which is the model we're talking about) has 63" drivers, which is a pretty typical driver size for Mikados. The drivers might be a tad large for the run of the mill Connie, but the model is of a LARGE 2-8-0.

The Illinois Central used the 2-8-0 's on branch line runs and I have watched them work trains of forty or more cars as a regular assignment in that service.

Actually, these engines (the model is based on the IC's 942 and 900 series engines) were originally built as mainline superpower in 1909. By the 1920s they had been bumped to secondary mainline service, mostly as local switchers and "turn" engines. By the time they were rebuilt into the 900 series, they had been re-upgraded to run trains on secondary mainlines as well as branches with heavier weight allowances (the IC maintained a small fleet of tiny 2-8-0s and 2-6-0s for true branchline service)

As far as I know all North American 2-8-0's were designed to be freight engines, but some were used on occassion for passenger service

Some turn of the century 2-8-0s WERE designed with passenger service in mind. The TStL&W (Clover Leaf) settled on the 2-8-0 as their standard engine some time around 1900, and by the time of their merger with the NKP in 1924 had an almost all 2-8-0 roster. Those engines pulled both their mainline passenger trains and their mixeds, and had relatively large 64" drivers. The NKP used the engines to pull passenger runs into the 1940s.

What's this nonsense about "light" and "heavy" 2-8-0s? ALCo and Baldwin both catalogued a range of 2-8-0s from very small to very large, none of which were described in contemporary sales literature as light or heavy.

Except that the model in question represents an IC engine, built by Baldwin, but to the specifications of the IC's mechanical department. Baldwin had nothing to do with the engine design. Moreover, the engine was a Harriman-Standard design, which DID have light and heavy engines. The model is of a Harriman heavy 2-8-0.

 

[markpierce]

 As a general rule, any steam loco with 2 pilot (leading) wheels is designed for medium-low speeds (freight). Fast engines (passenger) had 4 leading wheels. These wheels weren't just decoarative, they had functions. 2 wheels helped lead the loco into curves, and 4 wheels did so even better.

There were exceptions, of course, and of course you won't get struck by lightning if you break the "rules".

Another thing that seems obvious to old codgers like me, but seems to be unknown to some younger folks is that pulling capacity is (roughly) proportional to the number of driving wheels. A 0-8-0 switcher could move just about the same number  of cars as a 4-8-4. Not as fast (the switchers drivers were smaller) nor as far (the boiler on a switcher couldn't generate enough steam long enough), but they could move looong strings of cars! 

An example of the rule exceptions were the SP's 4-8-0s.  They were used for freight hauling.  SP kept them around for over half a century because they could be used on light-rail branchlines although they were otherwise obsolete.  (The 4-8-0 had one more axle to spread the engine's weight than the 2-8-0.)  Another example: some railroads purchased large-drivered 2-6-2s initially for passenger service.  Further, 2-8-0s were often used on excursion trains since the 1950s.

Another general rule was the passenger locos had one or two trailing trucks under the firebox because such locos could generate more steam (horsepower), necessary for sustained, high-speed service.  A major exception was the 4-4-0.

Mark

[AltonFan]

 An example of the rule exceptions were the SP's 4-8-0s.  They were used for freight hauling.  SP kept them around for over half a century because they could be used on light-rail branchlines although they were otherwise obsolete.  (The 4-8-0 had one more axle to spread the engine's weight than the 2-8-0.)  

The SP's 4-8-0s were originally built as compound locomotives, and the four-wheel pilot truck was there to support the machinery required by the compounding.  (IIRC, SP's 4-8-0s were originally cross-compounds.)  When they were rebuilt as simple engines, they retained the four-wheel pilot truck.

Because of limited driver size, 4-8-0s were rarely built as passenger engines.  And very typically, were originally built as compounds of one type or another.

[marknewton]

Except that the model in question represents an IC engine, built by Baldwin, but to the specifications of the IC's mechanical department. Baldwin had nothing to do with the engine design. Moreover, the engine was a Harriman-Standard design, which DID have light and heavy engines. The model is of a Harriman heavy 2-8-0.

Granted, Ray - in my defence I didn't realise the OP was referring to the Bachmann IC model...

My comment was in response to the tendency for many posters here to refer to all steam locos as "light" or "heavy", as if the USRA designations were applied across the board. I don't know about you, but it annoys me!

Cheers,

Mark.

[marknewton]

Because of limited driver size, 4-8-0s were rarely built as passenger engines

That statement is only true for the US. Railways in Argentina, Italy, France, Norway, Austria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Portugal, Spain and Sweden all had big-wheel passenger 4-8-0s. The last French 4-8-0s, Chapelon's 240Ps, were among the fastest, most efficient and powerful steam locos ever built.





Elsewhere - Asia, India, Africa, South America, and Australasia - 4-8-0s were usually mixed traffic engines.

And very typically, were originally built as compounds of one type or another.

If you're referring only to the US, that's not the case. By my count, simple engines outnumbered compounds in the US.

Cheers,

Mark.

[AltonFan]

Because of limited driver size, 4-8-0s were rarely built as passenger engines

That statement is only true for the US. Railways in Argentina, Italy, France, Norway, Austria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Portugal, Spain and Sweden all had big-wheel passenger 4-8-0s. The last French 4-8-0s, Chapelon's 240Ps, were among the fastest, most efficient and powerful steam locos ever built.

Elsewhere - Asia, India, Africa, South America, and Australasia - 4-8-0s were usually mixed traffic engines.

When I write, I take North American practices for granted; I am only minimally acquainted with non-North American railroading.

OTOH, one of the US locomotive builders built a fleet of 4-8-0s for the National Railways of Mexico which were used primarily in passenger service.  They were essentially 4-6-2s with a set of drivers replacing the trailing truck.  But these engines were built in the 1920s-1930s, whereas most US 4-8-0s were built in the last decades of the 19th century.  The Mexican engines had drivers between 60" and 70" (I can't remember the exact size and I am away from my books), while few US 4-8-0s had drivers that were even that big.  (And most 4-6-2s had drivers greater than 68".)

And very typically, were originally built as compounds of one type or another.

If you're referring only to the US, that's not the case. By my count, simple engines outnumbered compounds in the US.

I know that most of the later 4-8-0s used by Southern Pacific were originally built as cross-compounds.  Monon's 4-8-0s were also built as compounds.  I do not remember if Norfolk & Western's 4-8-0s, which was the largest fleet (over 200 engines) of 4-8-0s in the US, were originally compounds, but I would be surprised if they weren't.  I do not doubt the earliest 4-8-0s were built as simple, but most of those came and went before the 1920s.

But most, if not all of the 4-8-0s that survived until dieselization had been rebuilt as simple engines, often with superheaters.

Again, I don't presume to speak on the practices of railroads outside of North America.

[marknewton]

When I write, I take North American practices for granted; I am only minimally acquainted with non-North American railroading.

Yeah, I realised that. But this forum is international, it's not just North Americans who read it and post here...

OTOH, one of the US locomotive builders built a fleet of 4-8-0s for the National Railways of Mexico which were used primarily in passenger service. They were essentially 4-6-2s with a set of drivers replacing the trailing truck. But these engines were built in the 1920s-1930s, whereas most US 4-8-0s were built in the last decades of the 19th century. The Mexican engines had drivers between 60" and 70" (I can't remember the exact size and I am away from my books), while few US 4-8-0s had drivers that were even that big. (And most 4-6-2s had drivers greater than 68".)

Yes, Baldwin built six such engines for the NdeM, five in 1924 and one in 1935. They had 67" drivers. At least one is preserved, I've seen the thing. Typical BLW product, a nice bit of gear.

I know that most of the later 4-8-0s used by Southern Pacific were originally built as cross-compounds. Monon's 4-8-0s were also built as compounds. I do not remember if Norfolk & Western's 4-8-0s, which was the largest fleet (over 200 engines) of 4-8-0s in the US, were originally compounds, but I would be surprised if they weren't.

No, the N&W engines were all built as simples.

Whether you count individual engines, or by type/class, simple expansion 4-8-0s outnumbered compounds on US railroads, as originally built or as later converted.

Cheers,

Mark.

[Newyorkcentralfan]

Maybe on short lines and branches that had a traffic profile that was primarily freight oriented. However if the traffic balance was closer to 50-50 then 4-6-0 with medium height drivers, 57" to 66", was far more likely to be the choice.

 

 A lot of 2-8-0s were the primary or only form of motive power for many shortlines and branches all accross the country and so did all duties required along the line.

 

[fwright]

Maybe on short lines and branches that had a traffic profile that was primarily freight oriented. However if the traffic balance was closer to 50-50 then 4-6-0 with medium height drivers, 57" to 66", was far more likely to be the choice.

Perhaps the statement is true in the east, but in the West there were prejudices against the 4-6-0 arrangement on several railroads.  Then there were lines that really liked their 4-6-0s.  Prejudices and judgements of the engineering departments were a strong factor in what motive power railroads bought.

I enjoy the contributions of our friends who live in other countries.  There is no need to insult them.

living to learn

Fred W

[marknewton]

I enjoy the contributions of our friends who live in other countries.  There is no need to insult them.

That's okay, Fred, as insults go it was a pretty ordinary effort!

All the best,

Mark.