More Articulated Steam Egines please!

[cudaken]

 I have sort of mastered the Big Boy (after it comes back from BLI to fix the lights) and the PCM Y6b kicks butt. It got off to a flakey start with the cannon plug not staying in the engine and some odd crude on the tender wheels. But two calls to Bob at BLI she is draging 40 coal cars like there is nothing behinde her. Flicker fire in the fire box was a sweet touch I will add.

 So what is next in the way of Articulated steam engines?

 I know about the Challenger, but besides it what else is out there? I read something about a Yellow Stone, what does it look like?

 Is a Y-3 all most the same engine as my Y6b?

 Pic and Links, it will be a while before I buy anything with my Daughter getting married but I need to know what to look for.

           Cuda Ken

[wgnrr]

MTH announced a Erie Triplex, which is like an articulated on steroids, if you are interiested.

Phil

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

Dear Ken,

You are an insane nut!  But you like cool locomotives!

 

[selector]

Try a Rivarossi H-8, Ken.  It is the C&O 2-6-6-6.  A monster.  Otherwise, the Mantua tankers availably cheaply from trainworld.com.  Not DCC, but they can be made so, and they are apparently nice engines.

Otherwise, big bucks in brass.  Try Uncle Dave's Brass and see what he has in the way of big brutes.  Also, don't overlook the Beyer-Garratts.  Mark Newton has a handle on someone who makes them...I recall something like eurekamodels...something like that.  Also a bit pricey.

[marknewton]

My oath! The more articulateds the merrier!

Crandell, your recollection is correct about the Beyer Garratts, it is indeed

http://eurekamodels.com.au/Garratt.html

I nominate the following articulated locos for consideration:















Cheers,

Mark

[Dave-the-Train]

My oath! The more articulateds the merrier!

Crandell, your recollection is correct about the Beyer Garratts, it is indeed

http://eurekamodels.com.au/Garratt.html

I nominate the following articulated locos for consideration:

The Leader Class an articulated?  Hmm?  That's something of a moot point.  Personally I wouldn't call it an artic.  On the other hand i wouldn't call it a Flexible Wheeelbase either...

The next is a Klose Mechanism loco which, like the Hagens below it was a flexible not an artic.

[http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/klose/kl2a.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/hagans/hg1a.jpg" border="0" />

Then you have three proper artics...

 

and somrthing really articulated...

The last one is a real weirdity... if you look carefully you can see that the leading truck has two complete sets of cylinders one above the other.  This is because this design had a seperate rack engine combined into the leading truck.  IIRC these were Abt rack engines.  IIRC there were never any artic or flexible rack engines... they could probably not have synchronised the two sets of driven gears to the rack. 

Cheers,

Mark

 

Has anyone got a link to a Golwe?

The difference between an Artic and a Flexible is that the former has more than one frame with driving wheels and each frame has a set of steam cylinders (which cylinders on the two frames the Leader doesn't have) OR (as in a Shay) two or more distinct trucks the wheels on which are driven indirectly from a steam engine on the mainframe.  A Flexible only has one set of cylinders and has one or two frames with driving wheels.  Where there are two frames there is a mainframe and a sub frame.

If you go back far enough there were a few locos that had booster units that could be fed steam to give extra power for starting.  I'm pretty sure that some of the GNR 8' Singles had these tenders... they were not successful.  IIRC there were one or two (probably French) tank engines with boosters... again IIRC they were used in Parisian commuter service.  The idea of a booster was always to get extra traction... sort of a steam variant of a Slug or Road Slug.

As mentioned in a different thread recently the ATSF experimented with some articulated boiler locos.  These were definitely not a succes and were cannibalised to make locos that did work.

The principle problem was always maintaining steam tight joints.

[cacole]

If you want some really impressive articulated engines, check a G-scale live steam Big Boy or Garratt -- $7,000+

[marknewton]

The Leader Class an articulated?  Hmm?  That's something of a moot point.  Personally I wouldn't call it an artic...

Why not? It's as much an articulated loco as a Garratt, Meyer, K-M or Fairlie.

The next is a Klose Mechanism loco which, like the Hagens below it was a flexible not an artic.

I might concede the Klose, but not the Hagens - it's articulated. The rear four drivers are in a separate swivelling frame.

The last one is a real weirdity... if you look carefully you can see that the leading truck has two complete sets of cylinders one above the other.  This is because this design had a seperate rack engine combined into the leading truck. 

Yes Dave, I'm aware of this. Two of these engines survive, and I've crawled all over and under both.

IIRC these were Abt rack engines.  IIRC there were never any artic or flexible rack engines... they could probably not have synchronised the two sets of driven gears to the rack.

Sorry, there were. These K-Ms and the contemporary CTR Esslingens were articulated rack engines. In addition to the rack engine superimposed on the front adhesion engine unit, the rear engine unit is powered on the rack pinions only. "Synchronising" the two sets of rack pinions on one engine was no different to engaging the rack with two engines double heading. I take it you've never had any footplate time on a rack and adhesion engine?

The difference between an Artic and a Flexible is that the former has more than one frame with driving wheels and each frame has a set of steam cylinders (which cylinders on the two frames the Leader doesn't have)

Your definition doesn't take into account designs in which the coupled wheels are mounted in subframes or bogies to allow for a flexible wheelbase, which is why it's not one favoured by those knowledgable about steam. And Leader had cylinders on both bogies - three on each.

If you go back far enough there were a few locos that had booster units that could be fed steam to give extra power for starting.

Not that far back. Boosters were common on modern North American locos right up until the end of steam there. Google on "Franklin booster engine", you'll find plenty of examples.

I'm pretty sure that some of the GNR 8' Singles had these tenders... they were not successful

Yes, designed by CME(?) Sturrock. There were also a few other railways in Europe that tried Sturrock's idea.

The idea of a booster was always to get extra traction.

It would be more accurate to say that boosters were designed to increase tractive effort at low speed, where the boiler was producing more steam than could be used by the locos cylinders alone. Since most locos could haul a heavier train than they could start, boosters were quite useful.

All the best,

Mark.

[tomikawaTT]

First, let's hone a definition or three:

Articulated (1) - a blanket definition covering all of the more specific definitions below:

Articulated (2) - any locomotive with a frame arrangement that allows all its engines (cylinders with associated driven wheels) to assume an angle to the frame carrying the boiler.  Meyer-Kitsons and Fairlies (single as well as double) were articulated.  (The Mason Bogie of Colorado narrow gauge fame was a single Fairlie in basic design.)  The most widely used fully articulated loco was the Beyer-Garratt.

Semi-articulated - any locomotive with a frame common to its boiler and one engine, with one or two subframes (fitted with engines) that can assume an angle to the main frame.  This is what 99.44% of US built "articulated" locomotives were, although the Mallet pattern was not the only semi-articulated.  (Mark, do you happen to know how a DuBosquet was hinged?)

Flexible - any locomotive with an engine fixed to the frame carrying the boiler which has drivers (powered through geared or electric links) in subframes that can swivel in relation to the main frame.  Shays, Heislers and Climaxes were reciprocating steam examples.  Sticking to steam, but going with electric traction, the Heilmann, N&W's Jawn Henry and the C&O turbo-electrics also fit this definition.

I guess the WWI German trench engines that looked like 2-6-2s and ran like 0-10-0's could be called "semi-flexible," since the end axles were geared to the main engine and could swivel...  I rather believe this isn't the kind of articulated CudaKen had in mind (and not just because it was 600mm gauge!)

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[R. T. POTEET]

. . . . . . . . . . Is a Y-3 all most the same engine as my Y6b? . . . . . . . . . .

The Y3 was the USRA heavy articulated - the 2-6-6-2 was the light one - and N&W got almost fifty percent of the initial production; surprisingly the Y3 was derived directly from N&Ws own Y2a. Over the course of the next two decades N&W refined the Y3 design culminating in the Y6 design of 1936 and the ultimate of compound articulation, the Y6b of 1948.

[oleirish]

Try the Mantua  HO 2-6-6-2 W/tender this is a fine loco Mine is detaled a little and pulls real strong,I also have an rivrossi(spelling)Y-6B it is a good runner also.but could use more detail.

JIM

[TwinZephyr]

Somebody please make a Quadraplex or maybe even a Quintuplex for Mopar Man.

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

Who cares whether or not the prototype would have been successful - the model would be the biggest baddest ever.  Imagine the cars it could pull if it were built like a Bowser.

[EXCELSIORSS]

As an articulated man myself, I can at least put my two cents in...

The Rivarossi H-8 is sexy. It is by far my favorite. It runs sweet, and in my opinion, I think it has brass quality detail. It is the most detailed plastic engine I have ever seen.

The Proto Y-3 is nice. Also runs great, and detail is awesome, just hate that stupid wire bell cord, which is almost impossible to get back into the hole. I took mine off.

I also like the Rivarossi line that came out in the late nineties, which, while not as detailed, runs good and still looks pretty good. I have the Big Boy, 2 Challengers, a Cab forward, and a Y-6b, all of them have held up good and I still enjoy running them.

BLI-PCM - I have the Paragon A class, and a newly aquired Y6-b, both look awesome, sound great. My only problem is that the PCM Y looks so good, it makes my old Rivarossi look a little dated.

Finally, an engine that doesn't seem to get a lot of press, but is one of my favorites, is the Bachmann 2-6-6-2. I can't for the life of me figure why they stopped making it. This is a beautiful engine, it runs smoothly, is detailed on the level of the protos and is close to being as nice as the Rivarossi H-8. If you can find one of these little gems on e-bay or a train show, snatch one up, you won't be dissappointed.

[Dave-the-Train]

Mark

I'm not going to attempt to quote quotes!

My frazzled brain recalled the Leader as a steam electric... OOPS!  Were they inside cylinders?  That would make it an artic the same as a Fairlie by my definition... which I think does make a suitable distinction between artic and flexible which puts the Hagens into the flexible type... only one set of cylinders and the connection made to the rear powered truck by a lever system... I actually worked out what the levers and pivot points were for this to make a model... but shifted to driving myself nuts with LandRovers instead.

I did once meet someone who had fired a Leader... his comments were definitely not repeatable here.  The real problem was that they were designed to be oil fired with the fireman riding in the leading cab not stuck into an added in sweat box shand shovelling coal in the middle with no air supply.  The thing would nearly kill firemen.

Chuck does a better job of distinguishing between artics and flexibles.

The German army beasts were "Lutomoller's system" IIRC. There were both 10 and 6 wheeled variants of the Lutomollers. The outer axles were driven via gear mechanisms which also made a radial frame between the main frames.  IIRC they worked quite well in Namibia/German South West Africa.

A system which was outwardly similar was  developed at Duffield bank in Derbyshire ... by I can't recall who by.  That "outwardly" is a bit dubious on reflection... these engines had a sort of radial syatem on the outer axles but managed to have coupling rods outside the frames... weird.

No I don't have any experience on any steam footplates... dirty, mucky things!  (Actually I did ride a Black 5 on the Central Wales Line when I was a kid).  I certainly don't crawl around them... YEUK!

I clearly got which way round the Rack/Adhesion locos were arranged wrong... Did they have seperate regulators/throttles for the two engines?

IIRC at least originally the fairlies had a regulator that could be linked together or seperated for each engine.  Again IIRC JIC Boyd reckoned that on wet rail the lead engine could be slipped to clean the rail while the rear engine pushed.  We used to do exactly the same thing with all the Southern 3rd rail electric units up to and including the E series stock... the lead unit would spin and clean the rail while the rear unit(s) shoved.  Sounded awful at times but the trains got where they were going... as far as i know they were so substantially built that they did themsleves little damage.  It was a regular way of working for years.  The modern things give up and sulk if you fart near the computer in them.  My favourites were the 4 Subs.  Absolute brutes that could smash through thick ice.  (Pity one of them broke one of my fingers).

I had forgotten the US boosters.  Would you agree that they effectively did the same thing as slugs?

[Isambard]

------

Finally, an engine that doesn't seem to get a lot of press, but is one of my favorites, is the Bachmann 2-6-6-2. I can't for the life of me figure why they stopped making it. This is a beautiful engine, it runs smoothly, is detailed on the level of the protos and is close to being as nice as the Rivarossi H-8. If you can find one of these little gems on e-bay or a train show, snatch one up, you won't be dissappointed.

Excelsiorss, there's good news! Micromark is accepting orders for Bachmann Spectrum sound- equipped 2-6-6-2's, with anticipated deliveries starting this November. That would explain  why their fantastic clearance sale of soundless 2-6-6-2's several months ago. I love my Grizzly Northern 2-6-6-2 Monashee, but oh how I now lust for a sound-equipped one!  

[don7]

 

I would also recommend the Bachmann Spectrum 2-6-6-2. These engines are great runners, good slow speed running.

 

Another articulate to consider is the new Mantua 2-6-6-2, it is very close to the Great Northern L series. As I would like to model Canadian Steam I could justify these running in the East Kootenay's on the GN trackage along with CP Steam as well. 

With a bit of work you have one of the early mallets. Later in life these engines were converted into the O-5 and O-6 series Mikado's

http://www.steamlocomotive.info/brochure.html

[dinwitty]

Yah, the Y3 is an early version the N&W used.

Not mentioned yet are the Southern Pacific Cab Forwards.  4-8-8-2, there were 2-8-8-2 as well, Rivarossi had the, BLI has one, Intermountain also.

you will have to go brass for other variety.

 

DM&IR yellowstone 2-8-8-4 

[twhite]

 I have sort of mastered the Big Boy (after it comes back from BLI to fix the lights) and the PCM Y6b kicks butt. It got off to a flakey start with the cannon plug not staying in the engine and some odd crude on the tender wheels. But two calls to Bob at BLI she is draging 40 coal cars like there is nothing behinde her. Flicker fire in the fire box was a sweet touch I will add.

 So what is next in the way of Articulated steam engines?

 I know about the Challenger, but besides it what else is out there? I read something about a Yellow Stone, what does it look like?

 Is a Y-3 all most the same engine as my Y6b?

 Pic and Links, it will be a while before I buy anything with my Daughter getting married but I need to know what to look for.

           Cuda Ken

 

Ken--

Of the available non-brass articulateds available, might I suggest the Rivarossi H-8 2-6-6-6, one Heckuva handsome loco, smooth runner, INCREDIBLE puller, and just a real sweetheart of a loco.  And though it has a 14-wheel tender, it's NOT a Centipede, so you shouldn't have tracking problems on your layout (the tender has a 6-wheel and an 8-wheel swiveling truck).  Quite a lovely locomotive.  I've got the older version from some years back, and it's just a jewel. 

Also, check Micromark, they are offering the Bachmann Spectrum 2-6-6-2--a smaller articulated, but a very smooth-running one, and a VERY decent puller. 

You asked about a Yellowstone:  It was developed from the 2-8-8-2 only adding a 4-wheel trailing truck to accomodate a more 'super-powered' elongated firebox.  Not a lot of railroads had them, but they were extremely powerful locomotives.  Probably the most famous are those of the Missabe Road, whose tractive power (148,000 lbs) was rated ABOVE that of the famous UP Big Boy (though the locomotives were assigned to vastly different service).  Some other roads that ran Yellowstones included the Northern Pacific (for which the first ones were built), Baltimore and Ohio and Southern Pacific.  Espee's were built by Lima and were the only cab-backward 2-8-8-4's on the railroad.  Some consider the Espee cab-forwards to be 'backward' Yellowstones (4-8-8-2) however on the Cab-forwards, the 4-wheel leading truck was designed for tracking purposes rather than to support an elongated firebox.  Right now, however, the only Yellowstones available on the market (when you can find them) would be used brass from manufacturers such as Akane or Precision Scale Miniatures, and they're NOT cheap!

Tom  

 

 

[navygunner]

Here's a shot of a 2-10-2 CofG USRA Santa Fe (top), a 2-8-8-2 N&W USRA Y3 (center) and a 2-8-8-4 Missabe Yellowstone (bottom).  These are all N Scale models.  The Yellowstone is the reason I have upgraded to 20 and 22 inch radius curves on my layout as it has a fixed rear driver set that prevents reliable operation on 15 and 13.5 inch radius.  The Yellowstone pulls 60 plus 40 foot cars up a 2% grade with no problems if the curves are not too tight.  If you have the money and can find one in your scale, I say go for it!!

Here's a link to the distributors webpage:  http://www.benchmark-models.us/N/Index.html  They have a better camera than I have.

Your Y3 is a predecessor to the Y6b, after the USRA was disolved, N&W kept on upgrading the 2-8-8-2 to make it one of the most efficient drag freight locomotives ever built.  This was the Y6b, while no one ever compared the tonnage moved by any of the later US articulated locomotives, th N&W locomotives were regarded as more efficient in terms of coal and water used per ton/mile.  Being designed to haul heavy loads in the mountains of the Eastern US at 25 mph, the western companies were not satisfied with the performance of the 2-8-8-2, so they sold or scrapped their allotments as soon as WWI and the USRA ended.

Bob

[markpierce]

Tom,

I have to disagree that the SP 4-8-8-2 cab-forwards had a four-wheel truck under the firebox for better tracking rather than supporting a bigger firebox.  The AC-1 thru -3 2-8-8-2 cab-forwards had shorter fireboxes than the 4-8-8-2 AC-4s thru -8s and -10s thru 12.  The cab-forward MM/AM-2s, originally 2-6-6-2s on the other hand, were modified into 4-6-6-2s because of tracking problems.  The two MC-1s were built conventionally, and when modified as cab-forwards, becoming MC-2s (compound steam locomotives) and later AC-1s (when simplified to all high-pressure cylinders.

The conventional AC-9s of 2-8-8-4 configuration were considered "cab-backwards" by SP crews.  The crews considered cab-forwards superior to the "regular type."  Lima built the AC-9s, and Baldwin built the other ACs as well as the MM/AM-2s.  Alco/Sch. built the two conventional MM-3s (slow moving compound 2-6-6-2s) which the SP inherited from the Verde Tunnel & Smelter Railway in Arizona.  The slow speed of compound engines caused the SP to convert all of its other compound mallets to all-high-pressure cylinders.  (Thus the change in class from MM to AM and MC to AC.)  The later SP articulated classes, all 4-8-8-2s and 2-8-8-4s, were built for all high-pressure steam.

Mark

[marknewton]

Mark, do you happen to know how a DuBosquet was hinged?)

Chuck, they were arranged like a Meyer. The front bogie pin was a large diameter sperical bearing, the rear was a flat bearing. The front bogie could move in any direction relative to the boiler, but the rear could only turn in the horizontal plane. The rear sidetanks were mounted on the boiler cradle/frame, but the front tanks were mounted on the front bogie, and moved with it.

Cheers,

Mark.

[marknewton]

My frazzled brain recalled the Leader as a steam electric...OOPS! Were they inside cylinders?

Yes Dave, each bogie had three cylinders between the frames, with sleeve valves and chain drives, no less! The cylinders were fabricated and welded into place. It was later suggested that the many problems with the sleeve valves may have been in part caused by the distortion of the cylinder assemblies when they were welded in.

I did once meet someone who had fired a Leader... his comments were definitely not repeatable here. The real problem was that they were designed to be oil fired with the fireman riding in the leading cab not stuck into an added in sweat box shand shovelling coal in the middle with no air supply. The thing would nearly kill firemen.

You're not wrong! The idea of oil firing seems to have been dropped early on in the design phase, which was in my view a mistake. The fireman's lot on the Leaders was not improved by the use of a "dry-back" boiler with syphons, not unlike the Briggs boiler familiar to the small-scale live steam builders. The firebrick lining gave endless trouble, and did little to reduce the excess temperatures in the fireman's compartment.

Years ago I knew a bloke who had worked as a boilermaker at Eastleigh when the Leader boilers were built there. He said that the boilers were a successful design, in as much as they met or exceeded their specifications. They were certainly an advance over typical UK practice of the time, being of mostly welded construction, and having full rocking grates. The syphons had cross tubes instead of stays, another successful innovation.

The German army beasts were "Lutomoller's system" IIRC. There were both 10 and 6 wheeled variants of the Lutomollers.

I dunno about that. As far as I'm aware, the only Luttermöller system Feldbahn engines were a small number of 0-10-0Ts built by O&K. Another small batch of 0-10-0s built by Borsig had Gölsdorf axles. The great majority of Feldbahn engines, the well-known 0-8-0T "Brigadeloks", had Klein-Linder articulated axles.

A system which was outwardly similar was developed at Duffield bank in Derbyshire ... by I can't recall who by. That "outwardly" is a bit dubious on reflection... these engines had a sort of radial system on the outer axles but managed to have coupling rods outside the frames...weird.

That was Sir Arthur Heyward, the loco was "River Irt". It operated in a similar manner to Klein-Lindner axles, but relied on the use of cylindrical/curved crankpin brasses to allow the axles to move without distorting the rods. The fitters and machinists must have loved them...

No I don't have any experience on any steam footplates... dirty, mucky things! (Actually I did ride a Black 5 on the Central Wales Line when I was a kid). I certainly don't crawl around them... YEUK!

Yeah, but this is the way you learn about how they're nailed together, and how they work.
I've travelled a lot over the years, and I've never missed an opportunity to drive, fire or get under a steam loco if it was offered. That hasn't always made me popular with my travelling companions, but!

In all fairness, footplates are only as clean or dirty as the enginemen working them. I've been known to step off an engine at the end of the day almost as clean-looking as when I stepped on - sometimes!

I clearly got which way round the Rack/Adhesion locos were arranged wrong... Did they have seperate regulators/throttles for the two engines?

Yes, plus separate braking systems. The FCAB engines had straight air independent brake, automatic train brake, repression/counterpressure brake for adhesion and rack engines, band brake on the rack pinions and hand brake. The crew must have been busier than a one-armed bricklayer in Baghdad when it came time to stop!

I had forgotten the US boosters. Would you agree that they effectively did the same thing as slugs?

Er, I'm not sure. What do slugs do?

As for your observations about modern computerised EMUs, I couldn't agree more. We are currently being qualified on new traction, the so-called "OSCARS". When they go bad, which is all too often, you don't call out a fitter, but an IT technician. I hate the bloody things.

Cheers,

Mark.

[gn goat]

The Yellowstone was operated mainly by the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range RR (DM&IR). It came in two versions: the M3 and M4 with one being heavier than the other. The Missabe used them for hauling iron ore from Minnesota's Iron Range to Lake Superior ports for shipment to the iron mills back east. During the winter when Lake Superior froze the DM&IR lent their Yellowstones to the D&RGW. In a letter to the Missabe they stated that the Yellowstone was the finest steam locomotive they had ever operated. There are three remaining Yellowstones, two of which are in disrepair. The third is at the Duluth, Minnesota, rail museum and is in beautiful shape - well worth a stop if you're up that way. I have an Akane brass Yellowstone that I "stole" on eBay. I don't operate it - strictly for show. The only thing not prototypical about it is that the 1:1 Yellowstone centipede tenders were of welded construction and my model shows it as rivited, but I can live with that.

[twhite]

Tom,

I have to disagree that the SP 4-8-8-2 cab-forwards had a four-wheel truck under the firebox for better tracking rather than supporting a bigger firebox.  The AC-1 thru -3 2-8-8-2 cab-forwards had shorter fireboxes than the 4-8-8-2 AC-4s thru -8s and -10s thru 12.  The cab-forward MM/AM-2s, originally 2-6-6-2s on the other hand, were modified into 4-6-6-2s because of tracking problems.  The two MC-1s were built conventionally, and when modified as cab-forwards, becoming MC-2s (compound steam locomotives) and later AC-1s (when simplified to all high-pressure cylinders.

The conventional AC-9s of 2-8-8-4 configuration were considered "cab-backwards" by SP crews.  The crews considered cab-forwards superior to the "regular type."  Lima built the AC-9s, and Baldwin built the other ACs as well as the MM/AM-2s.  Alco/Sch. built the two conventional MM-3s (slow moving compound 2-6-6-2s) which the SP inherited from the Verde Tunnel & Smelter Railway in Arizona.  The slow speed of compound engines caused the SP to convert all of its other compound mallets to all-high-pressure cylinders.  (Thus the change in class from MM to AM and MC to AC.)  The later SP articulated classes, all 4-8-8-2s and 2-8-8-4s, were built for all high-pressure steam.

Mark

Mark--

Actually, you didn't tell me anything I didn't already know about the AC's.  The AC 4 and 5's were rated at 116,000 lbs TE, and the AC 6's and above were around 123,000 lbs TE, which of course was a huge improvement over the earlier 2-8-8-2's, and certainly needed a BIGGER firebox to obtain that power, but not necessarily a firebox that would require a 4-wheel supporting truck (WP's 2-8-8-2's--the prototype for the Missabe M3/M4 Yellowstones-- had as large, if not slightly larger firebox than the AC's, and supported it with only a 2-wheel truck).  Espee wanted a powerful articulated capable of passenger train speeds (which they got), and having learned their lesson from the little 'baby mallet' MM's, specified a 4-wheel leading truck mainly for tracking purposes.  Now if that turns them into 'backward Yellowstones', so be it, but Espee engineers (of which my great-uncle was one) simply referred to them as "Malleys", simple or not. 

One of the thrills of my childhood was riding between Truckee and Norden in the cab of an AC-6, and let me tell you, THAT was an experience.  Great locomotives!

Tom  

 

[Darth Santa Fe]

Like some of the other guys have said, the Rivarossi 2-6-6-6 would be an excellent choice. I've got one, and it is my best steam engine, period.

The other Rivarossi stuff is good too. They're great runners, and even though the detail is 60s technology, they still look pretty good.

Other choices would be BLI, PCM, P2K and Mantua Classics. And then there's the MTH 2-8-8-8-2 coming out soon, if you want something with a LOT of drive wheels! And then there's always Bowser, if you want to build a kit.

Here's a link to my review of the Allegheny, if you want to read about it.
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1181541/ShowPost.aspx#1181541

[dinwitty]

heh, been on the hunt for a DM&IR 2-8-8-4, and I finally Ebayed a winner. The Akane, hopefully be here soon. This engine keeps popping up on ebay, and really, the ebay prices have been going about equal to the new plastic stuff except for the newer brass releases.

Some modelmaker HAS to make this engine in the plastic and get DCC and sound into it.

I have a record here with the engine sounds, guys, this baby's a monster with a ghostly whistle! 

 

[twhite]

heh, been on the hunt for a DM&IR 2-8-8-4, and I finally Ebayed a winner. The Akane, hopefully be here soon. This engine keeps popping up on ebay, and really, the ebay prices have been going about equal to the new plastic stuff except for the newer brass releases.

Some modelmaker HAS to make this engine in the plastic and get DCC and sound into it.

I have a record here with the engine sounds, guys, this baby's a monster with a ghostly whistle! 

 

 

Dinwitty--

I doubt you'll be disappointed in the Akane--it's a big, heavy delicious brute of a locomotive and pulls like a team of oxen.  I've got two Yellowstones (one that I bought in 1965 when they were new), and if you don't mind a little 'coffee-grinder' noise from the gearing, you'll probably be very happy with their pulling power.  Not as beautifully detailed as newer brass, but if you want to improve the castings, you can get better castings from either Cal-Scale or Precision Scale Miniatures (I did, mainly to replace the Worthington FWH with an Elesco).  However all in all, they're one SPECTACULAR loco.  I've replaced the motor on my older one with a NWSL can, however the motor in the newer one (outside frame) is a very smooth runner.  Believe it or not, they CAN negotiate a 24" radius, however they look much better on a 30" or bigger.  I hope you enjoy it.  If not, let me know and I'll be happy to take it off of your hands, LOL! 

Tom

[markpierce]

Attah boy, Tom.  You inspire!

Mark

[R. T. POTEET]

I'm going to have to weigh in on the 4-8-8-2 issue; sometime in the past I read that the original reason for the 4-wheel truck under the cab of the cab-forwards - initially under 2-6-6-2s - was to overcome a traction problem HOWEVER the 4 wheel lead truck, in addition to solving the tracking problem, did indeed allow for a larger firebox and when SP ordered simple x-8-8-x articulateds sometime in the late twenties they specified the four wheel 'trailing' truck on their 'backwards' running engines hence the world got a 4-8-8-2 Cab-forward which became Espee's trademark locomotive.

[dinwitty]

heh, been on the hunt for a DM&IR 2-8-8-4, and I finally Ebayed a winner. The Akane, hopefully be here soon. This engine keeps popping up on ebay, and really, the ebay prices have been going about equal to the new plastic stuff except for the newer brass releases.

Some modelmaker HAS to make this engine in the plastic and get DCC and sound into it.

I have a record here with the engine sounds, guys, this baby's a monster with a ghostly whistle! 

 

 

Dinwitty--

I doubt you'll be disappointed in the Akane--it's a big, heavy delicious brute of a locomotive and pulls like a team of oxen.  I've got two Yellowstones (one that I bought in 1965 when they were new), and if you don't mind a little 'coffee-grinder' noise from the gearing, you'll probably be very happy with their pulling power.  Not as beautifully detailed as newer brass, but if you want to improve the castings, you can get better castings from either Cal-Scale or Precision Scale Miniatures (I did, mainly to replace the Worthington FWH with an Elesco).  However all in all, they're one SPECTACULAR loco.  I've replaced the motor on my older one with a NWSL can, however the motor in the newer one (outside frame) is a very smooth runner.  Believe it or not, they CAN negotiate a 24" radius, however they look much better on a 30" or bigger.  I hope you enjoy it.  If not, let me know and I'll be happy to take it off of your hands, LOL! 

Tom

 

its not even in my hands...yet   8-D

gotta build my layout now, a bad excuse is going to arrive. I have a test track tho and the seller said it needs a little work, I am no stranger to doing that, if I can fix the ALCO EL2 broken gears issue, I can do this.

the lead wheels on any engine are to help tracking and lead the engine into curves. If you find the wheels under the firebox they are supporting the firebox, if not, a little more for guiding.