Hey folks, looking for some advice on locomotives. For a long time, I've found myself torn between Moguls and Ten-Wheelers for my early '30's short line freelance project. Was one type preferred over the other for shortline work (other than 4-6-0's being perferred for passenger work due to the 2-axle pilot). Would you see both types rostered and then assigned where needed? Or would it just come down to what the line could afford to buy for their roster? My set up will be primarily freight with limited passenger service, set in mostly-flat areas with some low hilly country. (foothills).
From a layout-design standpoint, I'll have max 2.5% grades, probably hauling 8 cars per train at NMRA standard weight on code 75 track.
And I know that steamers could be widely modified based on the individual railroad's needs, and that in the end it's my RR and I can do what I want with it, but I do try to stick with real-world reasoning where I can. Thanks in advance for any insights.
- Adam
When all else fails, wing it!
Driver size plays a roll here. Since yours has limits passenger service, they might get one larger driver loco with the rest being smaller drivers. Definitely also an affordability and what's on the market. If the price is right. A 2-8-0 or 2-10-0 could end up there. Thinking along the lines that money wise management figured they could only get a ?-6-0 for the money they and found bigger one by surprise. A size they thought they couldn't afford but could use one.
shane
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
Hi Adam.
The four wheeler pilot was preferred for passenger operation to lessen the effect of hunting (the side to side thrusting from the forces of pistons and side rods.) A more comfortable ride was not necessary for freight service locomotives where weight on driver's over speed was preferred.
Another consideration is track and bridges. For a shoestring operated road then more axles to spread the weight over a longer distance would be preferred over a shorter locomotive with just drivers concentrating all it's weight on a short distance.
Hope this helps.
Pete.
LonehawkFor a long time, I've found myself torn between Moguls and Ten-Wheelers for my early '30's short line freelance project.
Just to be clear, a short line is a a smaller independent railroad, vs. a branchline which is a low volume piece of a bigger railroad.
A short line will have a more limited roster so engines will end up more generalized than on a larger railroad which can have engines for more specific purposes.
Was one type preferred over the other for shortline work (other than 4-6-0's being perferred for passenger work due to the 2-axle pilot).
Generally 2-6-0's were slower speed engines and were designed for higher pulling power. Generally 4-6-0's were higher speed engines and could have a larger boiler, so have more steaming power. There were at least twice as many 4-6-0's made as 2-6-0's. 4-6-0's in the 1900 era were fast freight and heavy passenger engines. They were replaced by 2-8-2's in freight service and by 4-6-2's in passenger service.
Would you see both types rostered and then assigned where needed?
Or would it just come down to what the line could afford to buy for their roster?
My set up will be primarily freight with limited passenger service, set in mostly-flat areas with some low hilly country. (foothills).
There is a enough variation and no set rules that you can do whatever you like. Normally passenger service on lower traffic areas was handled by 4-4-0's, they could easily handle a 2-4 car passenger train at lower speeds on mildly hilly territory. 2-6-0's were generally lower speed engines mostly used for freight. 4-6-0's were higher capacity than 4-4-0's and generally faster than 2-6-0's. Your choice. It's one of those things where you find an example of any option you want to choose.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
The two short lines I'm most aware of, the Rahway Valley and Bellefonte Central, were both using second hand 2-8-0's by the Thirties. I think you're looking for something like RV #14
http://www.trainweb.org/rahwayvalley/Engine_14.htm
or BC #15 - which is represented by a Bachman product
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADa0EU7p-3Y
To my knowledge, both were ubiquitous and could be used for pretty much anything. Performance was variable according to the type. There were also the 4-4-0s, that were still out there in the 30's on many lines, pulling passengers and freight.
To me, it boils down to looks and performance of the model you will buy. The Athearn models have traction tires that will help you get through the grades (2.5% is not insignificant for a steamer). The Bachmann's are really nice looking, but are not very good pullers. I love my Bachmann 2-6-0 (with new tooling). A good buy. You can double-head, but that's not very appealing if you are running a small number of cars. The Athearn is a bit more spartan-looking, and harder to find at a low price. But the little buggers can really pull...
Simon
Bear in mind that if you are going to freelance a prototype, you could easily get higher performance out of a 2-6-0 just as you can with a modern Berkshire, at the front end, and some of the English booster experiment 'technology' at the tender end.
It has not yet been fully established whether or not the LS&MS high-speed Prairies were in fact stable at high speeds. Apparently they ran just fine until the NYC people took over the technical side and rebuilt them into goofy Pacifics, right around the time of the great Wilgus debacle with the electric S1s (with, remember, different stability arrangements on their original two-wheel trucks).
First: the only thing that matters with adhesion is the weight on drivers. A 4-6-0 and 2-6-0 with comparable FA will have comparable weight on drivers. Weight distribution will be a bit different on a 4-6-0, and of course there needs to be more overall weight to get the Adams truck to run and guide correctly.
Second, using the geometry of, say, an AMC Berkshire, or the front engine of a N&W A or even a Y6b, will give you all the control of hunting and high-speed metastability that you'd need for a lead truck. Add in a little carefully-considered damping or even snubbing and you'll have an engine with less weight, less length, equal or better running and guiding, and (arguably) less overall construction cost.
At the tender end, push the front tender truck forward until it is as close to the drivers as you can manage, and put in a good Franklin radial buffer with the right drawbar pivot points (as determined from the Bissel formula). This keeps the back end of your engine from doing the G5/I1s dance at the speed the cylinders can push it. It will be important that this lead tender truck be capable of accommodating serious lateral force quickly and effectively -- it probably shouldn't be a typical three-piece design with only friction shoes between the sideframes and bolster.
Now with both these in place, you can start cranking off the amount of necessary overbalance to control that hunting we were concerned about... in other words, we can get almost arbitrarily close to the zero overbalance that was tried on some of the Australian 4-6-0s in the '50s. With zero overbalance you can effectively eliminate dynamic augment in the running gear with a little angled cross-balancing.
Now you only need one class for almost anything you need to do with a steam locomotive; it backs up as easily as it goes forward, it has high adhesion for switching, it goes as fast as any branch line or Whippet-style fast freight service could need it to go...
I like both 10-Wheelers and Moguls, and have four 10-Wheelers and three Moguls.
Two of the 10-wheelers are brass, but this one is currently the only brass one in use...
This is the other one, modified somewhat to match its prototype...
...but I'll be building a completely new body for the tender, as the one which came with the loco is incorrect for the number I chose.
I also have two Bachmann 10-Wheelers...
...but didn't much care for their somewhat old-fashioned appearance.I converted their cylinders from slide valves to piston valves...
...then re-boilered them using a couple of old Varney cast metal boilers...
...and added cabs from Bachmann Consolidations...
I also shortened and narrowed the Bachmann tenders, and added a few details...
...then slapped-on some paint and lettering...
They run well, and are decent pullers, too.
The Moguls are from three different sources, and the first one was my first brass locomotive. It was a model of a Boston & Maine prototype, but was a very poor runner. Here's a photo of it with some slight detail modifications, after I had re-motored and re-geared it...
It still looked, to me, at least, a little too old fashioned for my late '30s-era layout, so I replaced the cab with one from a Bachmann Consolidation, and re-worked the tender to increase it's coal capacity. It's a very good runner, and surprisingly good puller, too...
The next two were from IHC, and if I recall correctly, a ten- or twelve-dollar bargain each, from Hobbies For Men, in Beacon, New York. A friend liked them so much that he bought one of mine.They ran okay, but weren't very good pullers, so I re-motored mine and added weight to it, too.
Here's the mostly as-bought appearance (the tender was originally for oil, as it was, I think, a model of a Southern Pacific prototype)...and, as you can see, I converted it into a coal burner...
I later reworked the tender again, to increase it's capacity...
...then also added a Bachmann cab, from a Consolidation, plus a few better details and some additional weight....
A couple of days ago, I was doing a little layout maintenance, and decided, on a whim, to test the drawbar pull of a pair of locos that were sitting in the upper level's staging yard. One was a Bachmann Consolidation, the other the #37 Mogul. I knew that the Bachmann Consolidations were very capable locomotives, but was surprised that tester showed an 8.3oz. drawbar pull for the pair.
My other Mogul, a brass model given to me by the same friend who had bought the other IHC loco, has some special significance to me.
I was a six year-old kid at the time, and a neighbour alerted us that there had been an accident on a nearby street, involving a locomotive. My mother took me and my three year-old brother down to have a look...
Here's a photo, taken from the roof of a nearby building, by a newspaper photographer...(and then taken by me from one of Ian Wilson's books on railroads in Canada)....
...and this photo of a mural, painted on a wall on a different part of the same street several years ago....
The lead Mogul had picked a switch, with the illustrated results, while the other loco, a CNR Mikado is also visible, and still upright on the tracks.
The loco and tender were both repaired and put back into service, and my model will be of the repaired version.
Here's the re-worked locomotive....
....but I'll be making a new body for the tender, as it was very different from the one shown.
Wayne
This being a short line railroad, is there traffic density to warrant separate passenger and freight traffic? Or could there be several mixed trains with head end coaches? What would be the daily schedule? Three passenger trains to two freight? Would there be enough passenger traffic to justify a separate train? I would imagine said passenger operations would not be traveling at Blue Ribbon speeds. A short line railroad would probably not spend too much on heavy rail and deep ballast mainlines capable of high speed tonage. Saving the maintenance of another axle and going all 2-6-0 locomotives would suffice. 62 inch drivers for the heavy loads and drag freights with 72 inch or more fore the passenger runs.
Just my thoughts.
wrench567 A short line railroad would probably not spend too much on heavy rail and deep ballast mainlines capable of high speed tonnage. Saving the maintenance of another axle and going all 2-6-0 locomotives would suffice. 62 inch drivers for the heavy loads and drag freights with 72 inch or more for the passenger runs. Just my thoughts.
Most railfans associate higher drivers with 'diameter speed' and faster operation. But that is not the only reason for using comparatively tall drivers with comparatively short stroke -- which in the United States was a common formula for high speed, sometimes taken to comical extremes as in the PRR T1.
One of the great European designers, Karl Golsdorf, designed an express locomotive for what we would consider laughably tiny axle loading -- below even what we'd consider self-respecting branch lines (but with attentive geometry maintenance by their equivalent of sectionmen). This had a two-wheel lead truck, and very tall drivers with short stroke precisely to limit augment at normal speeds on the light rail. He had a large firebox and boiler, supported by a four-wheel trailing truck (to produce what looks like an insane 2-6-4, a Pacific turned backward, with the trucks doing the opposite of what we considered typical North American practice) -- these engines ran long, and well, and one of them is currently restored to operation!
So in practice you might well see high 60 to low 70s driver diameter in branch service...if you weren't using obsolete 'mainline' power from decades ago as hand-me-downs to operate the branch. If you had a savvy shop that did much of its own work (like casting driver centers) you could easily pattern for shorter stroke, right down to where the critical dimension is the web between the axle and the main pin (as it is on the T1s) and leave the valve gear with long lap and long travel but reduce the ports and fixed cutoff and use Weiss/slot ports (which don't show on a model) for better starting.
Incidentally, you will want to look up the patent and operating premise of the Wagner throttle circa 1912 or 1913. This was among the first successful uses of fluidic amplification, and makes a very responsive throttle all the way down to pilot opening something possible for a typical grapevine linkage, even at substantial opening throttle pressure. It would be comparatively easy to incorporate a subsidiary drifting/starting throttle concentric with the main throttle spool, which would make driving the thing easy under any conditions, and simplify any issues that might arise with slipping or spinning. This might show on the outside as a balanced linkage, and in the '40s or later would be a 'natural' for one of the commercial air throttles...
NOW let's have some fun and look at how a branch line might be run with these.
We might assume some comparatively small things, for example that the 'free good roads' movement did not catch on in our area (so trucking or buses are not competitive, and automobile use for even medium distance is troublesome) and that our 'connecting' railroad is running expedited freight on the Speed Witch model (that train, its 3 'sisters' on other Northeast railroads, and the CNJ Bullet are examples of 1931-era responses to the Depression), with quick and effective crossdock to LCL on the branch trains.
You have a combine with a baggage section (equipped with cranes and hoists for lowering heavy packages to trackside quickly and effectively) and a 30' RPO, which gives presorting not only for mail coming from outside, but between communities. Express is handled via REA both to and from the local stations, and again the service is same-day coming and going for the communities, and not 'that' much longer for the stations served by the connecting train. All this without need for an effective surcharge over normal postal and express rates.
Depending upon branch length, I'd provide a parlor car with at least 'buffet' service, as well as good coaches. You can have some fun with using higher-speed trucks on the passenger stock (you can't copy Nystrom, but you could learn from his example to optimize ride quality for your speed range) and use passenger braking.
The question with mixed trains then comes down to interchange stock that is compatible with the higher speed and perhaps the passenger proportional-release braking. I can easily see a larger 'parent' railroad building a set of express cars with steam and signal lines; while true high-speed three-piece trucks didn't come about (anywhere except the Reading) until post-WWII there was little about the Chrysler and other research that a savvy shop couldn't provide once aware of the utility. Google the history of replacements for Allied Full Cushion trucks to see some of the possibilities...
Regular freight can be run 'mixed' with less capable coaches -- the principal difference being the issue of brake control. For fun you could provide the equivalent of a cushion underframe on your coach, so some of the bumps and surge wouldn't be felt in the seats...
I based my shortline loosely on the Ulster and Delaware RR which was absorbed by the New York Central in 1932. It used the Ten Wheelers as their primary motive power as do I. My shortline remained solvent and independent in 1956 when my layout is set.
Ulster and Delaware Railroad - Wikipedia
Every kid (1950s and earlier) used to know that passenger locomotives had four wheel pilot trucks and freight locomotives had two wheel pilot trucks. As early as 1895 passenger trains were doing 100 mph (at least where the track was good). Freight trains seldom exceeded 30 mph. The higher speed required more weight on the pilot truck to lead the locomotive into curves and turnouts, and to dampen the side to side motion from the pistons. The greater weight required four wheels to carry it. The freight locomotives required much less weight on the pilot, they put all the weight they could on the drivers. So freight locomotives worked just fine with a two wheel pilot. Hence the recognition feature for small boy train fans. Back in the day all small boys were train fans.
They could, and often did, use passenger engines to pull freight trains. It didn't bother the passenger engine to run at 30 mph. Less often they would use freight engines to pull passenger trains. Plenty of commuter routes and other routes were limited to 30 mph. In the old days Mom would drive over to the Wayland train station to pick up Dad off the B&M commuter train. Us kids usually came too. That commuter train was very often pulled by a B15 Mogul.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
snjroyThe Athearn models have traction tires that will help you get through the grades (2.5% is not insignificant for a steamer).
This is my biggest concern with this scenario. A 2-6-0 or 4-6-0 might have significant trouble pulling a train, even a short one, up a 2.5% grade.
Old metal boilers, like Wayne used, will help.
Are you willing to do that kind of work? If not, using 2-8-0s might be a better option.
This one can be found reasonable on eBay. It looks like it would be right at home on a 1930s short line. Converting it to DCC would be challenging if that is how you are operating.
-Photograph by Kevin Parson
-Kevin
Living the dream.
SeeYou190 snjroy The Athearn models have traction tires that will help you get through the grades (2.5% is not insignificant for a steamer). This is my biggest concern with this scenario. A 2-6-0 or 4-6-0 might have significant trouble pulling a train, even a short one, up a 2.5% grade. Old metal boilers, like Wayne used, will help. Are you willing to do that kind of work? If not, using 2-8-0s might be a better option. This one can be found reasonable on eBay. It looks like it would be right at home on a 1930s short line. Converting it to DCC would be challenging if that is how you are operating. -Photograph by Kevin Parson -Kevin
snjroy The Athearn models have traction tires that will help you get through the grades (2.5% is not insignificant for a steamer).
I haven't pushed it to 2.5% but parts of my shortline have a 2% grade and my Bachmann 4-6-0 has no trouble hauling 7 cars up the steepest parts. I haven't pressed it beyond that but based on how easily it can handle 7 cars, I see no reason to think it would balk at 10. I'm sure there is a limit but there just aren't enough customers on the shortline to require more than that.
One big factor is, what did your prototype (if any) do? The C&NW for example was a big believer in 4-6-0s and used them for a wide variety of service - local freights, mixed trains, branch line passenger service, switching, right to the end of steam in the mid 1950s. If the CNW had Moguls it must have been back in the 19th century.
The Southern Pacific had 4-6-0s but was a big believer in Moguls even after that wheel arrangement was considered out of date by other railroads, and had many classes of them, rather high drivered at that, and used them right to the end of steam in the '50s.
The Milwaukee Road was a big believer in Prairies -- 2-6-2s -- again running them in quantity even after the Prairie type was considered obsolete on most other railroads.
While ten-wheelers are often described as dual service locomotives, on the Pennsy in the 20th century 4-6-0s were commuter train passenger locomotives. While the Pennsy had had 2-6-0s and 2-6-2s, they didn't last deep into the 20th century. The Pennsy had a vast roster of 2-8-0s that they used for a variety of services, including switching but also local freight and now and then one sees photos of Consolidations in slower speed passenger service.
And then there is the Hoopole, Yorktown & Tampico in Illinois that used an elderly ex-Burlington 0-6-0 for freight and passenger service, because it was their only locomotive!
For a 1930s (read .... "broke") short line, don't forget the Ma & Pa which used its 4-4-0s `for a long time to the delight of railfans. But as another poster mentioned, if you really intend to model 2.5% grades, and if no particular prototype is being modeled, I'd say whatever small steamer can handle that grade should control, and you'd be safe knowing that somewhere, even on Class 1s, just about any wheel arrangement has a prototype.
Dave Nelson
The Ulster and Delaware RR, which my shortline is loosely based on, was nicknamed the Up and Down as it ran from Kingston Point on the Hudson, through and over the Catskills to Oneonta, NY, its western terminus. Their 4-6-0s were able to handle the traffic up those grades during the first part of the 20th Century. That was the reason I selected 4-6-0s to do the same on my shortline.
Just to add to the previous post, the U&D used those 4-6-0s to pull coal trains over their 3% grades.
John-NYBWParts of my shortline have a 2% grade and my Bachmann 4-6-0 has no trouble hauling 7 cars up the steepest parts.
Good to hear the Bachmann 4-6-0 is so capable.
I have no experience with that locomotive, so I had no idea.
MidlandMike Just to add to the previous post, the U&D used those 4-6-0s to pull coal trains over their 3% grades.
I'll have to dig up my book on the U&D. It's been at least ten years since I last read it and I'm a little fuzzy on some of the details. I knew they went over the Catskills but I'd forgotten about the 3% grades. I do remember in the waning years they had issues with their track maintenance.
My Bachmann 4-6-0's stall out with 10 cars on a 2% grade.
dehusman My Bachmann 4-6-0's stall out with 10 cars on a 2% grade.
Maybe I'll have to try it to find out the limit on mine. So far seven is the most I've ever needed to take up the grade at a time. There are only 8 customers on my shortline and 4 of them are reached before the steepest part of the grade. It has taken 7 cars over the summit with no problem at all.
John-NYBW SeeYou190 snjroy The Athearn models have traction tires that will help you get through the grades (2.5% is not insignificant for a steamer). This is my biggest concern with this scenario. A 2-6-0 or 4-6-0 might have significant trouble pulling a train, even a short one, up a 2.5% grade. Old metal boilers, like Wayne used, will help. Are you willing to do that kind of work? If not, using 2-8-0s might be a better option. This one can be found reasonable on eBay. It looks like it would be right at home on a 1930s short line. Converting it to DCC would be challenging if that is how you are operating. -Photograph by Kevin Parson -Kevin I haven't pushed it to 2.5% but parts of my shortline have a 2% grade and my Bachmann 4-6-0 has no trouble hauling 7 cars up the steepest parts. I haven't pressed it beyond that but based on how easily it can handle 7 cars, I see no reason to think it would balk at 10. I'm sure there is a limit but there just aren't enough customers on the shortline to require more than that.
The PRR's 2-6-0's (Class F) were used as fast freight engines at a time when regular freights were powered by 2-8-0's (Class H) and passengers by 4-4-0's (Class D) and 4-4-2's (Class E). It found high drivered 2-6-2's (original Class J) to be unstable at high speed and went with 4-6-2's (Class K) for 6 coupled passenger power.
The Class F locos were gone by the Thirties, the Class D's had their drivers (80 inch) replaced by smaller diameter ones (68 inch) to become branch line dual purpose locos - see the D16sb at RR Museum of PA, the Class E's (except for the E6s, which had the power of a light Pacific) became secondary line engines, early 2-8-0's such as H6 were demoted to way freight and switcher duty (Despite its heavy traffic, the PRR had only 90 0-8-0's (Class C) which were not well liked due to the damage they inflicted on track) followed by the H8, H9 and H10 classes as they were replaced by Mikado's.
The MILW Prairies were a different breed than the high drivered speed demons of the PRR and LS&MS (NYC). First, as a type, the 2-6-2's were the first engines to use a trailing truck to support a large firebox, behind the drivers. This was to be copied by virtually all future road locomotives as it resulted in a free steaming boiler that produced plenty of steam. In addition the combination of low (63 inch) and moderate (69 inch) drivers clearly marked them as freight or dual purpose machines. Last, the MILW engines had their driving rods connected to the third set of drivers. This made for a comparatively stable loco, those 2-6-2's with the rods connected to the second pair were right at the center of rotation of the locomotive, which caused them to yaw (a problem also on center connected 2-10-2's or any center connected symetrical wheel arrangement). Essentially, the MILW engines and its contemporaries had everything a modern engine had - except power. They enjoyed a brief moment of glory as mainline freighters, but were replaced by Mikado's from about 1910 on (commonly thought to be a Consolidation with a trailing truck, it might be better to think of Mikes as Prairies with an extra set of drivers). The low and moderate drivered, rear connected machines then settled down to long and productive careers as branch line, way freight and switching locomotives
By, the way, there was a seperate group of 2-6-2's that was built for short lines and industrial users such as loggers. Here, the advantage wasn't the wide firebox, but that the rear truck helped guide the locomotive when running backwards on what was often pretty sketchy track.
BEAUSABREBy, the way, there was a seperate group of 2-6-2's that was built for short lines and industrial users such as loggers. Here, the advantage wasn't the wide firebox, but that the rear truck helped guide the locomotive when running backwards on what was often pretty sketchy track.
Thanks,
-Matt
Returning to model railroading after 40 years and taking unconscionable liberties with the SP&S, Northern Pacific and Great Northern roads in the '40s and '50s.
Your wish is my command, my little swamp turnip. We'll start with logger McCloud River, which had no less than eleven of the beasts
McCloud River 2-6-2 "Prairie" Locomotives in the USA (steamlocomotive.com)
Bonhommie and Hattiesburg Southern
bhs250a.jpg (900×675) (hawkinsrails.net)
Klondike Mines
km4-gueller.jpg (1070×520) (steamlocomotive.com)
Red River and Gulf
rrg-15.jpg (400×196) (msrailroads.com)
Eureka-Nevada
RAILROAD PRINT EUREKA NEVADA Ry 2-6-2 STEAM LOCOTIVE #7 | eBay
Sierra Railway
Sierra-Railway-30.jpg (900×544) (ncry.org)
Here's the mother load, technical descriptions, some photos, just pick the railroad you never heard of and you'll probably find locos meeting this description (Locobase is a great reference)
2-6-2 "Prairie" Locomotives in the USA (steamlocomotive.com)
If it doesn't have photos, pick a railroad, then do an image search using "Name of Railroad 2-6-2"
Mantua made a 2-6-2 that was similar to the ones Baldwin made for the logging industry. With rubber tires. With some fine tuning, they can be fine runners.
BEAUSABREIf it doesn't have photos, pick a railroad, then do an image search using "Name of Railroad 2-6-2"
Here's sometging you might want to consider
HO MEHANO TRAIN LINE BALTIMORE & OHIO DCC READY 2-6-0 MOGUL #M 533 | eBay
BEAUSABRE Here's sometging you might want to consider HO MEHANO TRAIN LINE BALTIMORE & OHIO DCC READY 2-6-0 MOGUL #M 533 | eBay
That looks pretty much exactly like those two IHC Moguls that I bought, many years ago, at Hobbies For Men, for ten or twelve bucks apiece. I've remotored mine and re-detailed it, too. It's a much better loco than it was when I first bought it.
If that person's asking price is $91.00, my re-worked version...
....should be worth at least a couple hundred...there's gotta be more than a few gullible purchasers around.
I'll give you two hundred....rubles