What am I?

[pbjwilson]

an aggrojonesapod 4-4-4-6-6-6-8-4-2

[Anonymous]

nope

[Anonymous]

let me correct that, late 1980s

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pbjwilson

an aggrojonesapod 4-4-4-6-6-6-8-4-2

Eats SD70MAC's, picks AC6000CW's out of it's teeth.[;)]

[AggroJones]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

C&O Steam Turbine 4-8-4-8-4

(Really 2-Do-2+Do-2, since it used traction motors)

or. while we are at it N&W's "Jawn Henry" Which was a Co-Co+Co-Co, if I remember correctly.

Peter

I can't remember which of those was more powerful!

Nope. I mean regular rod engines.

Another clue. I'm in the Northeast and generated up to 8000 horsepower.

[M636C]

Aggro

Pennsylvania S-2 6-8-6 Turbine No 6200

(I have the Lionel Scale Turbine in its case in front of me! And I missed it all this time!)

By the way on page 85 of Kalmbach's "Steam Glory", tractive efforts are listed:

UP Big Boy, TE 135375 lbf

C&O H-8 (Allegheny) TE 110200 lbf

N&W Y6b (simple) TE 166000 lbf

N&W Y6b (compound) TE 132000 lbf

You seemed surprised that a Y6b had a higher tractive effort than an H-8

Also, the C&O 500s were more powerful than "Jawn Henry" but not PRR 6200

The C&O wheel arrangement was 2 Co1+2 Co1-Bo (or 4-6-2+4-6-2-4-0) since two of the motors were in the trailing bogie (sorry about that!)


Peter

[joseph2]

A PRR Q2. Joe G.

[M636C]

I'd agree that the Q-2 was about the same power as the S-2 and might be more "conventional".

Peter

[AggroJones]

QUOTE: Originally posted by joseph2

A PRR Q2. Joe G.

You got it.

These massive 4-4-6-4 were built to replace the mighty J1s. Generated more horsepower than the Allegheny, and could do more work with less machinery.



This may be the next Pennsy unit coming from BLI.

[joseph2]

Anyone else may pose the next question. Joe G.

[M636C]

OK,

A dead easy one for quick turnover!

This locomotive was built for export during 1917-18 and again during 1942-45, and locomotives from both groups were "left over" and used on US railroads. The wheel arrangement and one US Road name that used it!

Peter

[AggroJones]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

OK,

A dead easy one for quick turnover!

This locomotive was built for export during 1917-18 and again during 1942-45, and locomotives from both groups were "left over" and used on US railroads. The wheel arrangement and one US Road name that used it!

Peter

Russian Decapods?

[Anonymous]

to add to Aggro's post, it was a 2-10-0, and I think the Frisco used them.

[M636C]

Guys,

Both correct first time!

Some of these (WWII version) were seen working in North Korea in the last few years, and some are still in working order in Russia I think.

ACL, Seaboard, Frisco, DT&I and may other lines all used them. The DT&I units were really nice, because Henry Ford's supervisor kept them really clean, with polished rods, because he thought the crews would look after them better!

Most of the WWII locomotives were rebuilt and sent to Finland, but Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern got the only one to stay in the USA.

Right, someone else ask one!

Peter

[M636C]

OK,

Another one, not that easy!

These two steam locomotives were built in 1939, and were involved in the Seventieth Anniverary celebrations of the "Golden Spike".

They had the same number of wheels as a Challenger, but no tender. Despite this, they were intended for coast to coast running. The boiler pressure was more than five times that of a Big Boy!

Road Name and numbers please!

Peter

[AggroJones]

So, it is a tank steamer, with 20 wheels, and freakishly high boiler pressure?

[M636C]

I'm not really sure about whether you could call it a tank engine, but it did carry all its water on the locomotive frame.

It belonged to UP, if you couldn't guess from my references, and was used to promote the movie named "Union Pacific" released in 1939.

So all you have to do is give me a road number (or two!)

They may have been the first locomotives from that builder for UP. But definitely not the last!

Peter

[joseph2]

Was it a steam turbine-electric? That would explain the high boiler pressure. I know the UP tested one back around then. Joe G

[AggroJones]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

OK,

Another one, not that easy!

These two steam locomotives were built in 1939, and were involved in the Seventieth Anniverary celebrations of the "Golden Spike".

They had the same number of wheels as a Challenger, but no tender. Despite this, they were intended for coast to coast running. The boiler pressure was more than five times that of a Big Boy!

Road Name and numbers please!

Peter

Union Pacific, steam turbines UP-1 and UP-2 from GE.

[M636C]

Yes, correct GE Steam Turbine Nos 1 and 2

These had a wheel arrangement of 2-Co-Co-2 (or 4-6-6-4). They looked like a New Haven EP-4 but with a single cab (and smaller driving wheels) The back half of the locomotive was a condenser, basically a huge radiator, so no steam was exhausted to the atmosphere after passing through the turbine. It just re-used the same water. The boiler was a small water tube boiler working at 1550 lbf/sq.in. As amazing as it sounds, it actually worked, but the GE engineers had done their calculations based on huge systems generating electric power for the grid, and hadn't properly taken the small size (relatively) of the locomotive into account. As a result, the heat losses in the system were much higher than expected, and the fuel consumption (it burnt oil, of course) was ridiculously high, so when they couldn't solve that problem, everybody just gave up.

Still, it gave both the builder and railroad experience that was useful when they went to gas turbines (which were actually more economical!)

Peter

[AggroJones]

My wheel arrangement was popular around the turn of the century.
I'm the most advanced steamer of this wheel arrangement on my road.
We were modified over 50 years to keep up with the times, and lasted to the end of steam. I featured a super Vauclain compound cylinder.

[M636C]

Norfolk and Western 4-8-0 ?

(Or a couple more clues, please!)

Peter

[AggroJones]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

Norfolk and Western 4-8-0 ?

(Or a couple more clues, please!)

Peter

Nope.

I was ran on a great Northern road and was occasionally used in freight service.

[Anonymous]

A GN 4-8-2 or 2-6-6-2?

[M636C]

Great Northern class E-14 4-6-0, rebuilt as Pacifics, classes H-5 and H-7

Peter

[AggroJones]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C


Great Northern class E-14 4-6-0, rebuilt as Pacifics, classes H-5 and H-7

Peter

Right wheel arrangement, wrong road.

[M636C]

Northern Pacific Class S-4 4-6-0

The problem is that too many clues fit more than one answer!

"Modified" could have referred to the GN conversion, or even the strange conversions of the N&W 4-8-0s, for example. The S-4s were relatively little altered (superheating and simple cylinders)!

Peter

[AggroJones]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C


Northern Pacific Class S-4 4-6-0

The problem is that too many clues fit more than one answer!

"Modified" could have referred to the GN conversion, or even the strange conversions of the N&W 4-8-0s, for example. The S-4s were relatively little altered (superheating and simple cylinders)!

Peter

Bingo. These impressive ten-wheelers are my favorite turn-of-the-century little steam locomotives.

[AggroJones]

Hold on, let me get another one in please.

I set the world record for distance travelled by a steam locomotive.
I'm fueled by oil now, but I originally used coal.
My road didn't classify me as my real wheel arrangement, but as an extension of an early wheel arrangement.
I'm from a transcontinental railroad.

[M636C]

Milwaukee Road class F-6 4-6-4, "Baltic" or "Milwaukee" type

The "F" series was used for the CMStP&P "Pacific" classes

Peter