i had found this information on these two railroads website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-10-10-2#Virginian_Railway_class_AE and i am trying to get more photos of these engines so i can attempt to build one for my layout or if anyone knows if these where ever made for a HO scale layout and if any do exist
thanks
david
asta wrote: i had found this information on these two railroads website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-10-10-2#Virginian_Railway_class_AE and i am trying to get more photos of these engines so i can attempt to build one for my layout or if anyone knows if these where ever made for a HO scale layout and if any do exist thanks david
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Interesting locos. They did exhibit some TE. I love VGN (rather obviously), but between the VGN 800s and the SF whaleback tender ones, I think the 2-10-10-2s win the ugly tender competition, hands down, among all classes. I know why they did it and I don't care - it's ugly. On the other hand, the VGN's USE class were about the most handsome mallets in my opinion with that classic plain boiler front, and the BA's were the Ultimate non-articulated fast freight locos.
8500HPGASTURBINE wrote:I have seen about 15 of them on Ebay so far. They go for a fair price. Westside makes them. When I get home I'll email you all the pics you want on them. I can also give you the prices they went for. It seems like you could buy one a lot cheaper then you could build one.
He meant the VIRGINIAN engine, not the SANTA FE - which you are thinking of. The VIRGINIAN model from Custom Brass is much rarer (only 200 pieces) than the Westside SANTA Fe engine, and they are much more expensive. The last one I saw went away for exactly 2500$, but it was as mint as it could get. And since my 3 ebay years I found only about 5 or 6 of these models (one of these is in my collection now) - and none at the online dealers.
Most of the so called early large steam experiments like the 2-10-10-2 and the Triplex engines were not sucessful in actual operation. The 2-10-10-2's were extremely slow and the boiler was not sufficient size in steam generation. This was the problem with the Triplex engine as the boiler could not provide sufficient amount of steam for the three sets of cylinders. They were used very little in actual service.
Cheers
CAZEPHYR wrote:Most of the so called early large steam experiments like the 2-10-10-2 and the Triplex engines were not sucessful in actual operation. The 2-10-10-2's were extremely slow and the boiler was not sufficient size in steam generation. This was the problem with the Triplex engine as the boiler could not provide sufficient amount of steam for the three sets of cylinders. They were used very little in actual service. Cheers
But the VIRGINIAN 2-10-10-2s were VERY successful - much more than the later 2-6-6-6s and 2-8-4s. They ran for decades, and did it UNCHANGED - except some got a Worthington BL feedwater heater. These engines were what the road wanted. A huge boiler (btw it was the largest ever used on any steam locomotive) which COULD AND DID provide sufficient steam, and plenty of T.E. VIRGINIAN always was a drag speed road, so these engines fit perfectly, thus the long operating life span.
VAPEURCHAPELON wrote: CAZEPHYR wrote:Most of the so called early large steam experiments like the 2-10-10-2 and the Triplex engines were not sucessful in actual operation. The 2-10-10-2's were extremely slow and the boiler was not sufficient size in steam generation. This was the problem with the Triplex engine as the boiler could not provide sufficient amount of steam for the three sets of cylinders. They were used very little in actual service. CheersBut the VIRGINIAN 2-10-10-2s were VERY successful - much more than the later 2-6-6-6s and 2-8-4s. They ran for decades, and did it UNCHANGED - except some got a Worthington BL feedwater heater. These engines were what the road wanted. A huge boiler (btw it was the largest ever used on any steam locomotive) which COULD AND DID provide sufficient steam, and plenty of T.E. VIRGINIAN always was a drag speed road, so these engines fit perfectly, thus the long operating life span.
I am not sure and don't have any reference books to find out how long the 2-10-10-2's were used, but I am under the impression they were not used like the USRA 2-8-8-2's of other railroad. They were not high horsepower locomotives and could not have sustained the amount of steam sufficient needed for any other service other than slow drag service. The Virginian used the electrics also which probably cut short the life of these drag engines. If you have the dates of their mainline service, I would appreciate the information. Even the Virginian used the 2-8-8-2's in their road service. Did ALCO build the 2-10-10-2's ?? I could not find any reference to them in my Baldwin books, which has the Triplex I referred to.
The Triplex design was really a problem. The quote below is from the Norfork and Western Historical Society concerning the merged Viginian. They were returned to Baldwin after the tests.
Steam Locomotives
The Virginian was often in the forefront of steam locomotive development, particularly in the area of LARGE articulated locomotives. The most (in)famous was the class XA Baldwin Triplex. This was built expressly for pusher service up the Clark's Gap grade. Unfortunately, its appetite for steam exceeded the capacity of its boiler. It was returned to Baldwin after extensive field trials, and was rebuilt into two smaller locomotives.
.
VAPEURCHAPELON wrote:None of the real ones has been saved, and as others stated, the only H0scale model is a Japanese built brass one, but imported by CUSTOM BRASS. It is a very good model, but due to the era it has been produced some details have been omitted, and currently I add these, plus I would rework the drive line.
THE SANTA FE 2-10-10-2 was made up from 2 900 class 2-10-2s. for their Arizona divde pull.
The WHALEBACK TENDER was designed so this engine could be run backwards. It is doubtful the ATSF had turtables long enough to turn it.
Reputedly, this engine' suffered from insufficient boiler steam and limited top speed. They were all rebuilt back to 2-10-2s. The 'Whalebacks' were primarily attached to the new 1600 class rebuilds.
The Virginian used the electrics also which probably cut short the life of these drag engines. If you have the dates of their mainline service, I would appreciate the information.
All of the Virginian AE 2-10-10-2 locos were built in 1918. Seven were scrapped in 1948, two in 1952 and the last, #805, was not cut up until May, 1958. They all had a service life of at least 30 years.
Source: "The Virginian Railway" by H. Reid, Kalmbach Publishing, 1970.
Andre
R. T. POTEET wrote: VAPEURCHAPELON wrote:None of the real ones has been saved, and as others stated, the only H0scale model is a Japanese built brass one, but imported by CUSTOM BRASS. It is a very good model, but due to the era it has been produced some details have been omitted, and currently I add these, plus I would rework the drive line.Custom Brass may very well have imported one of these but that must be a second offering then and I missed it in the dark; I am certain that Custom Brass came into being AFTER I first became acquainted with this engine which, I am sure, dated from the mid-60s.I know when I first got in the hobby this LMB outfit was importing the Matt H. Shay; I did not initially realize that 2-10-10-2s and 2-8-8-8-2s were unique wheel arrangements; they sure looked impressive to this rookie model rail!
I checked my Brown Book and the only Virginian 2-10-10-2's were the 200 imported by Custom Brass in 1979. LMB did import the Erie Triplex but not the Virginian one, that was imported by both PSC and WMC.
Rick
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
so are these engines are alot bigger the the 4-8-8-4?
Good Luck, Morpar
Morpar wrote:Bigger than the 4-8-8-4, no. They had more drive wheels, but they were a smaller diameter, as were the boilers.
Not true. The boiler of those VIRGINIAN beasts had a FAR GREATER diameter - thus having BY FAR the greatest heating surface. Only the grate area was a bit smaller, but this was never an issue because the coal they used was better than on UP. I had the opportunity to compare that model directly with a 4-8-8-4 - and aside from the somewhat shorter length it looks much bigger than the Big Boy - both higher and broader.
What the Virginian was trying to accomplish with their 2-10-10-2s, N&W with their 2-8-8-2s, and UP with their 4-8-8-4s, were different tasks. If success is measured by service length, I think N&W wins hands down, but I don't think it's quite that simple. While I am not a huge Big Boy fan (I doubt I'll be missed in the stampede), I do believe it was an emminently successful design; it was highly suited to it's task, and the Challenger did okay too. N&W's freight loco's, the As and Ys, were in my opinion the very best out there at their jobs; N&W specialized in getting more from less, size wise. C&O and VGN kinda stumbled with their 2-6-6-6s in my opinion - barely matching the capabilities of a Class A in any category but horsepower, at the cost of thousands and thousands of pounds of more weight. They won the last horsepower war of the steam era, to what end I am not sure. UP got the "biggest" glory, true or not, and N&W emerged as the legend of steam for all time.
Technology has progressed at a faster and faster pace as mankind has developed tools to help this evolution along. The trend had already begun by the time the Big Boys and Y6bs arrived on the scene. The last Js only served 9 years, and they are as fine a steam passenger engine as was ever built.
In our society, it matters not what product or service a company renders; only whether or not it makes money, and manages to keep it's name out of the mud. On that basis, history should score the N&W, Virginian, and UP fairly highly I would think.
dti406 wrote:I checked my Brown Book and the only Virginian 2-10-10-2's were the 200 imported by Custom Brass in 1979. LMB did import the Erie Triplex but not the Virginian one, that was imported by both PSC and WMC.Rick
R. T. POTEET wrote: dti406 wrote:I checked my Brown Book and the only Virginian 2-10-10-2's were the 200 imported by Custom Brass in 1979. LMB did import the Erie Triplex but not the Virginian one, that was imported by both PSC and WMC.RickI know the Brown Book to be incredibly accurate so if it does not give recognition to any 2-10-10-2s except for the Custom Brass import then I, undoubtedly, have been laboring in a delusion. I do remember being exposed to this particularly unique - and extremely rare - wheel arrangement early in my model railroading experience: I thought for sure that it was through a model import but I appear to have been incorrect in this circumstance and I apologize to the readership for advancing misinformation. Perhaps my knowledge of this locomotive came from rhetoric in one of the model railroad magazines; whatever might be the case I am glad that this issue has been clarified by those with more knowledge than mine.As a clarification on a somewhat related issue involving triplex wheel arrangements I believe that the Virginian triplex was a 2-8-8-8-4 wheel arrangement whereas the Erie triplex was a 2-8-8-8-2. I do remember a writer somewhere stating that the Virginian triplex succeeded in running out of steam before running out of yard limits! Having just stumbled in my facts I am advancing this information as a "I think" possibility which, admittedly, may be incorrect.
The Virginian was indeed a 2-8-8-8-4, where the Erie in the book is a 2-8-8-8-2 and was a compound locomotive. Both looked somewhat alike since both were built by Baldwin. It is an interesting locomotive since the tender is very small sitting on top of what looks like a 2-8-0.
The book (Locomotives that Baldwin Built ) has a picture of the Viginian #700 on page 122. It was built in 1916 as a simple engine, not compound and after a short time in testing was returned to Baldwin. It is somewhat an odd looking engine and was very large for a 1916 era, but the boiler looks to have less steam capacity than a modern 4-8-4 like the Santa Fe 2900 class. They were built for pusher service, but were not able to furnish steam for all six simple cylinders according to articles.
The book also has pictures of the Erie Triplex on page 121 and 124.
CAZEPHYR wrote:The Virginian was indeed a 2-8-8-8-4, where the Erie in the book is a 2-8-8-8-2 and was a compound locomotive. Both looked somewhat alike since both were built by Baldwin. It is an interesting locomotive since the tender is very small sitting on top of what looks like a 2-8-0. The book (Locomotives that Baldwin Built ) has a picture of the Viginian #700 on page 122. It was built in 1916 as a simple engine, not compound and after a short time in testing was returned to Baldwin. It is somewhat an odd looking engine and was very large for a 1916 era, but the boiler looks to have less steam capacity than a modern 4-8-4 like the Santa Fe 2900 class. They were built for pusher service, but were not able to furnish steam for all six simple cylinders according to articles. The book also has pictures of the Erie Triplex on page 121 and 124. Steam Locomotives The Virginian was often in the forefront of steam locomotive development, particularly in the area of LARGE articulated locomotives. The most (in)famous was the class XA Baldwin Triplex. This was built expressly for pusher service up the Clark's Gap grade. Unfortunately, its appetite for steam exceeded the capacity of its boiler. It was returned to Baldwin after extensive field trials, and was rebuilt into two smaller locomotives.
I found a web page with the same pictures as the Baldwin book.
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/triplex/triplex.htm
asta wrote:would it be possible to scrach build one of these 2-10-10-2's or the triplex? thses are interesting engines and i think they would be a great eye catcher on my layout
asta
Depending on your skills, you could start with a USRA 2-8-8-2 or Rivarossi 2-8-8-2 and add the 0-8-0 chassis under a cut down tender. It would be an eye catcher for sure. The most obvious problem with the Triplex is the second engine is almost under the cab, which eliminates the deep firebox area. This is one reason they did not steam well. It would require a lot of cutting and who knows, if you are good at kit bashing, post a picture.
The VGN Triplex was rebuilt into a 2-8-8-0 and a 2-8-2. One reason some of their 2-8-8-2s looked like N&Ws is that they were third hand N&Ws. The rest were similar to the USRA engines and N&W Y-2s, from which the USRAs were developed. The Triplex was a compound engine, with the center engine feeding the front and rear engines (one off each cylinder).
The 800s were about the limit of Virginians successful trailblazing developmental steam engine activities. For the most part, they stuck to tried and true technology. They did know how to make money very well.
asta wrote:as the third set of drive wheels is ther a place that i can go to and buy a drive mechanism and then somehow add it to the usra 2-8-8-2?
This would indeed be a nice project, but at first I would say you need two USRA 2-8-8-2s, from the second one you need the front drive mechanism because the tender drive and the front drive of the triplex were identical to the best of my knowledge (or at least almost identical with hard to tell differences), but second the boiler would not be fat enough to look prototypically aside from the fact that many details would have to be changed. The tender body would have to be completely scratch built.
I think you would be more happy to save some money for future and look for a brass model. Yes probably expensive, but these special models retain their value, plus the detail and proportions ARE prototypical. If you could find an older one which is cheaper than the later ones you can add some omitted details like cab deck apron, or brake rods, and this is fun!
I think the question was to build a 2-10-10-2
Bowser has a 2-10-2 but its wheel diameters might be too big.
Someone made a VGN triplex using mantua mechanisms and scratching the rest, recently a model of the month award in MR I think.
This is why I wish some of these model makers didnt go outa business because the posssibilites of bashing is great to do these things.
Prolly the best current example of lokies I wouldnt be afraid to bash around on are the IHC engines. They arent always correct for the prototype they throw a roadname on so whadaheck... Most stories I hear tho is they run fairly well.
I am looking into bashing a never built HOn3 2-8-8-2.