And here is how I know I am old and have been in this hobby a long time.
I don't think of any model train built in the late 1990's as "old". "Old" would be something pre Proto or Spectrum..........
I have two Proto 2-8-8-2's, great locos.
Sheldon
wobblinwheel My Proto locomotive is N&W #2019. It does NOT have the "Y" pipe between the front cylinders. Is it a Y3, or a USRA engine?
My Proto locomotive is N&W #2019. It does NOT have the "Y" pipe between the front cylinders. Is it a Y3, or a USRA engine?
As stated above, N&W 2019 prototype is BOTH a USRA Original and N&W Class Y-3. The model, if having Worthington BL2 feedwater heater on the lefthand side represents the 1930's until end of steam version.
All 50 N&W 2-8-8-2 Y-3 engines were updated during the early to mid 1930's and their appearance remained the same from then until the very end. That is why even in ho brass the 1930's look is the way that most models get made. NP, Clinchfield, Virginian, and Rio Grande fans are just about the only ones who would want anything with the as delivered USRA look from 1919. Most N&W steam fans would want the modernized versions. They always were the best sellers, even when Oriental Limited made their Powerhouse diecast-brass hybrid series.
Even of the 4 railroads named, the USRA original version engines generally are not as popular as other articulateds for those roadnames. Though I myself am looking for a good Rio Grande one at a fair price...the other Rio Grande articulateds are all expensive.
John Mock
Hi John,Were ALL of the full scale 2-8-8-2 Y3's built as compound engines/,...or did a few roads have them built (or modified) to be simple engines??
I ask because I purchased a 'VIRGINIAN' model by Proto Heritage, that if I recall corectly came with two alternative sets of front cylinders ,...one set makes it a simple steam, the other a compound one.
I'm going to have to recheck this when I get back off of vacation, but I still have all those parts in a single box anticipating a kitbash project with this particular loco.
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
[quote user="PRR8259"]
Mike C.
railandsail So it appears as no one has found a way to make the Proto Y3 a better puller??
So it appears as no one has found a way to make the Proto Y3 a better puller??
How much better? On a test run, mine pulled 44 ore cars (mix of MDC and Walthers) with Hay Brothers load inserts and a caboose on level track. Seems like it was on the edge of slipping, but my layout's designed to run 36 car ore trains, and it handles those with no problems.
Earlier today, I hooked my entire freight fleet to my Proto Y3, which consisted of 22 loaded coal hoppers, 3 loaded flat cars, 3 tank cars, the rest boxcars and a caboose. 45 freight cars total, on a flat layout. Slipped a bit on start-up, but pulled them without issue. I don't think that's too bad for a "no-tire" loco!
Are these 2-8-8-2's part of that Proto 2000 "Powerhouse" series which was a plastic steam engine with a brass boiler IIRC?
If so, back when I aws in grad school in the early 1990's, a guy in our club bought one and ran it and it was smooth as butter - nice runner. If I wasn't a starving grad student with a tightwad for a wife, I would have bought one myself since D&RGW used some 2nd hand for a while - I wasn't modeling steam era but could have been tempted, especially since none of the primary D&RGW std. gauge steam engines are available in plastic, a few minoro players like the UP type challenger and the 2nd hand N&W articulateds.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
To my knowledge Proto 2K/LifeLike/Heritage never built a "powerhouse" model, nor one with a metal boiler.
Oriental Limited built some hybrid locos they called PowerHouse series that had metal boilershttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/34103.aspx
Please read carefully, folks:
I thought we had clearly covered this above, but apparently not.
First, D&RGW did not ever acquire USRA 2-8-8-2's secondhand. Their class L-107 were USRA copies built during the early 20's, specifically for Rio Grande, and very nearly identical to the USRA original engines. LeMassena states they spent almost their entire lives as helpers in Utah, and were rarely photographed. The engines that Rio Grande acquired secondhand were N&W Y-2 and/or Y-2a 2-8-8-2's. Those are the engines on which the USRA 2-8-8-2 was based, but they pre-date all USRA steam, and are different animals, with high mounted air tanks on the boilers (were Rio Grande Class L-109). They are closer to Rio Grande Class L-95 and L-96 in overall appearance than to the L-107 (USRA copy).
As I stated above ALL N&W Y-3 2-8-8-2's, engines 2000 through 2049, were operated with compound configuration cylinders (much larger front low pressure cylinders) their entire lives. To my knowledge, none was ever rebuilt to simple configuration (all cylinders the same size to take high pressure steam). Ditto the 30 Y-3a Class USRA copies...all were compounds. Ditto the other USRA original 2-8-8-2's. Nobody simpled any of them that I am aware of. None of the engines that went secondhand to UP, PRR, ATSF, Virginian, or elsewhere was ever simpled, either. The C&O H-7 simple articulateds that did also go to UP secondhand were never a USRA engine, but instead a completely different locomotive from the ground up.
The compound articulateds that were later simpled were usually earlier designs that needed a good updating. Good example: the Reading 2-8-8-2's that became 2-8-8-0's upon rebuilding.
If someone has a model that is different, then that model was altered from factory.
Now, also: Oriental Limited had Samhongsa build a Powerhouse Series USRA 2-8-8-2 during the 1980's, both USRA Original and N&W Y-3 Versions. It is diecast (zamac) with brass details. The drive mechanism, besides having soldered in place crankpins, is otherwise the exact same mechanism that is in other $2000 brass articulateds built by Samhongsa. These are great running engines, if not as detailed perhaps as some would like.
John
N&W rebuilt all of their Y4 through Y6A locos with the cab-adjustable simpling valve installed from the start on Y6b's, after they tested it and discovered how much more power they could make and how easy it was to control, which diverted HP steam to the LP cylinders on the front engine to make one of the finest locos ever built for speeds up to 50 MPH (limited by small driver profiles which only allowed so much iron for balancing at any higher speed). It was known as an "Interceptor Valve". They also rebuilt a handfull of earlier Y3's with the valve but N&W never built a single 2-8-8-2 with four cylinders of the same size, unless it was some obscure experimental no one's ever heard about...although the 2-6-6-4 A (which is longer in length and came surprisingly close to pulling as much as the "Chesapeake" all-time stump-puller champion did) was built in the conventional simple design, for running at speeds routinely up to 70 MPH.
Reading the message about getting facts straight: one well-known resource web site has the pulling power of the entire Y4, Y5 and Y6 series locos (Y4 - Y6B) listed incorrectly.
The well-documented tractive effort and drawbar HP listed in numerous reputable publications citing N&W archives and sources is 152,206 lbs tractive effort (TE) and 5,600 HP at 25 MPH with the "Intereceptor Valve" wide open for simple operation; and 126,838 Lbs TE with it closed for pure compound running.
Perhaps some personal favoritism for Big Boy influences this exclusion of the simpled listings for the YG6b, as well as converted 4's, 5's and 6a's. After all, Big Boy's TE was "only" 135,375 lbs. and 5300 HP at 46 MPH.
I do believe there is some claim to a GN 2-8-8-4 capable of more, however the railroad itself did not use the 85% convention when calculating power, and instead used 75% which was by most accounts much closer to reality for big articulated simple locos (and other types) and by that convention the Y6's had even the Yellowstones beat, hands down. Regardless, N&W obtained their published numbers from a dyno hauled behind the loco, while the figures used to compute the GN Yellowstone were merely theoretical and very likely should be .75 for the type.
Ah, well, not to pirate the thread...I came here for advice on the Proto 2000 line of steam and I am very glad to have found some remarkably great reviews and some excellent insight for locos I never knew had been built by them - including my favorite "Chesapeakes". How cool is THAT? You guys rock!
Hmm...I believe N&W even built some Y's with boosters that pulled 170,000#, but the maintenance shops hated them and they were few and far between, with whatever having been built getting the boosters removed when they needed repairs.
I would happily insert a photo showing the complicated plumbing of an Interceptor Valve, but I'll be darned if I can figure out how to post a photo on this thing. So I posted it to my Facebook album, and here is a link for you to check out my photo scans taken from Lewis Jeffries' "N&W: Giants of Steam"
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156719776925875&set=a.10156719775460875&type=3&theater
Necro topic.
Well, it is indeed almost zombie season, as October approaches, lol.
Rereading the thread is somewhat interesting...hope it was actually helpful and not coming across...poorly.
riogrande5761Necro topic.
.
I have never seen anything wrong with bringing an interesting discussion back to life.
This one was new to me.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
i have the union pacific 2-8-8-2 version that they bought off N&W
p2k i wanna say 1999 & even thou i have 27 big boys & a few other articulateds
it still runs great with a crappy MRC decoder .
thomas81z i have 27 big boys
Did the UNION PACIFIC have 27 Big Boys?
No, they had 25 Big Boys total, ever.
However, it's his railroad...so he must really really love Big Boys.
The Pennsy bought 6 N&W Y-3s and classed them HH1. I painted one for my layout:
PRR_HH1b by Edmund, on Flickr
The only freight engine to have a keystone number plate, I believe.
PRR_HH1d_sm1 by Edmund, on Flickr
PRR only used them for a few years. I guess they were pretty well worn out when they got them but it was duuring the War and they were sorely needed.
Regards, Ed
PRR8259 No, they had 25 Big Boys total, ever. However, it's his railroad...so he must really really love Big Boys. John
yea i overshot it by 2 , i didnt check my excel spreadsheet to see what i had
N&W's wandering Y-3's
I picked up this old 'special' issue of Classic Trains dated Feb 2008,....Railroads and World War ll
Inside it had some interesting articles including the one titled N&W's Wandering Y-3's. It basically discussed the many railroads that 'inherited' N&W articulated steam engines.
When a few roads ran short of power during the war, outdated compound 2-8-8-2's were a partial answer
I really need to go back and reread this article. If I recall properly there were numerous roads that ended up with N&W steam engines due to the trickle down effect.
SeeYou190 riogrande5761 Necro topic. -Kevin
riogrande5761 Necro topic.
One reason I can think of is if readers aren't paying attention to the dates, they may be misled into thinking the discussion is current. Sometimes posters in the topics aren't even alive, or no longer active here.
As an aside, it is actually against the rules in some forums to necro topics. In others it is frowned upon. So apparently not all agree with you. In the past I have necrod a few topics in another train forum and noted that no body ever responded - it seemed to be a tacit disapproval, which I "got" so I tend to avoid it now. This forum seems to be a bit a bit loose in some ways so no suprise necro topics are fairly regular feature as well as topics only tenuously related to trains. Different strokes.
riogrande5761 In others it is frowned upon. So apparently not all agree with you.
No one will force you to read old topics or comment on them.
PRR actually received 6 Y-3 (original USRA) 2-8-8-2's from N&W. They wore road numbers 373 through 378. In an anomaly for lowly freight engines, they actually wore Pennsy Keystone numberplates. They were used in heavy transfer service, both in/around Columbus, Ohio, and between Harrisburg (Enola Yard) and I believe, Hagerstown, Maryland. My last landlord, Jack Keister, now passed away, actually operated them out of Enola Yard. The Pennsy people didn't like the mallets because they were slow. Jack was later a Broadway Limited locomotive engineer. He liked to run fast, or at least faster than mallets.
Coming from N&W they would have been well-maintained, and not worn out, at least not upon arrival, to PRR.
N&W was only giving these engines up because they had a relative surplus of new or recently built later mallets, and they were among the few railroads anywhere in such a fine motive power situation. I would not accuse N&W of knowingly selling "worn-out" engines, especially when their own Y-2's and Y-3's continued in service into the 1950's, after ALL other railroads got rid of their ex-N&W engines (possible exception of Virginian).
As far as late design Mallets in the US, was the 2-8-8-2 the most common wheel arrangement?
Without taking a count, I would say yes.
Most Mallet, or compound, articulated locos were one of three wheel arrangements, 2-8-8-0, 2-8-8-2 or 2-6-6-2.
Yellowstones (2-8-8-4), Big Boys (4-8-8-4), Challengers (4-6-6-4), N&W Class A (2-6-6-4), C&O/Virginian 2-6-6-6, and all the SP cab forwards (4-8-8-2, 4-6-6-2) were simple expansion articulated locos.
There were a few 2-6-6-2 locos that were simple expansion.
In North America that only leaves the triplex and a few other odd balls.
But remember, the very last steam loco built by Baldwin for mainline service in the US was a 2-6-6-2 compound, C&O 1309
A few more thoughts.....
"late design"?, well, as Mallets go, most of the later locos were simply "improvement programs" on the 1918-1920 designs.
That last C&O H6 in 1949 was not really that dfferent from its 1918 USRA H5 brothers.
The Y6b, was just a 1918 Y3 with a 1,000 little tweaks and few big ones like roller bearings and one piece engine bed frames.
The C&O alone had over 325 2-6-6-2's in 6 classes, how many 2-8-8-2's exisited? I'm still checking...
Thanks guys, fascinating history on those old steamers,..
...even if its an OLD subject thread
ATLANTIC CENTRAL"late design"?, well, as Mallets go
Sorry for not being clear. By "late design" I meant mallet, or articulated, locomotives that would have still been around at the twilight of steam power in North America.
I could have asked that question in a much better way. I truly appreciate the information.
Kevin--
No disrespect intended, but to steam fans "late design" would usually refer to the very latest steam engine designs that embraced the "Superpower" concept of high horsepower at (higher) speed (than compound articulateds, which are relatively slow runners).
The N&W A Class 2-6-6-4, the C&O 2-6-6-6, and others, were truly amazing in the relative "improvements" offered over the earlier compounds. There's wonderful books out there on the subject.
PRR8259No disrespect intended, but to steam fans "late design" would usually refer to the very latest steam engine designs that embraced the "Superpower" concept of high horsepower
Yes, I know. I realized when I read Sheldon's response that I did a poor job asking the question.
SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL "late design"?, well, as Mallets go . Sorry for not being clear. By "late design" I meant mallet, or articulated, locomotives that would have still been around at the twilight of steam power in North America. . I could have asked that question in a much better way. I truly appreciate the information. . -Kevin .
ATLANTIC CENTRAL "late design"?, well, as Mallets go
No worries.
It would take considerable research to know how many locos served into the late 40's or early 50's, but:
I did come up with some totals in each wheel arrangement, and even eliminating logging and mining operators, the 2-6-6-2 was the winner with 934 locos owned by Class I railroads.
The 2-8-8-2 was second at 684, and the 2-8-8-0 a respectable third at 447 locos.
Here are a few random examples:
B&O EL-5 class 2-8-8-0's - built 1919, 64 of 86 converted to simple expansion starting in 1927, many lasted until 1954.
Same story on the UP - most/all 2-8-8-0's converted to simple expansion and lasted into the 50's.
Many of the C&O 2-6-6-2's lasted well into the late 50's, with the last 10 having only been built in 1949.
I think it is safe to say significant percentages of all three of these wheel arrangements lasted into the post WWII era, some with modifications, some with major upgrades, and some only slightly different from their 1920/1930 built dates.