Trains.com

Did these two share similar parts? The Rio Grande L-105 and Western Maryland M2 4-6-6-4 Challengers.

2035 views
10 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2020
  • 290 posts
Did these two share similar parts? The Rio Grande L-105 and Western Maryland M2 4-6-6-4 Challengers.
Posted by Engi1487 on Thursday, February 15, 2024 4:33 PM
  •  Hello everyone. So everyone is familer with the Union Pacific challangers, but I learned of other classes and types American railroads, such as the Rio Grande L-105. They where known for their large hazard striped pilot mounted sandboxs. There was also the Western Maryland M2s, as they where only challanger type used on the east coast where the WMs trackage was.
  • Both where built by Baldwin Locomotive works, so did they share a similar chassis or parts?
  • I product suggested these two to a well known manufacturer of steam locomotives in HO scale a few days ago. They where in made in brass long ago, so it would be good to see new RTR versions of them done.
  • The company I emailed are known for their models of the late style Union Pacific challangers [same class/style that UP 3985 belongs too] with the centipede tender. Rio Grande & the Clinchfield RR owned the same style as well.
  • I feel the market is a bit oversaturated with UP style challangers. The market could use new variations of other 4-6-6-4s american railroads owned. The guy from the model railroad company I emailed replied back, thanking me. He said the L-105 was on the list but not in design yet.
  • He wants to know if the WM challanger shares common parts/same chassis with the L-105. At first glance they don't, but if so, they could probably do both! This would make it easier to design both and possibly announce around the same time.
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,468 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, February 16, 2024 10:08 AM

Somehow, commonality of parts and Baldwin doesn't seem to go together.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,295 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, February 16, 2024 10:21 AM

I don't see many likely commonalties between the L-105 and the M-2.

Driver diameter was different; engine wheelbase was different, cylinder diameter was different, firebox dimensions very different (136.5 vs. 118, likely reflecting higher rank coal available to WM). FA 4.18 early/4.15 late vs. 4.22 (and yet the WM engine, with only 250# vs. the D&RGW 255, and 1" smaller cylinders, had the reputation of being slippery and hard to work...)

  The internal structure of the boiler was wildly different, too: the WM used a more conventional 222 tubes and 60 flues at 23' length, but D&RGW (for a dual-service engine) had only 61 tubes (!) and 238 3.5" flues (!!) - this was reduced in number but increased in size (191 @ 4") for the second batch in 1941.  There was a similar arrangement of syphons (3 in the firebox, 2 in the chamber) but this got changed up on the later L-105s, and you're probably best off consulting actual diagrams or blueprints for the detail differences, particularly the one that got security circulators and a nominal reduction in radiant heating surface.

 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 567 posts
Posted by drgwcs on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 10:39 AM

I would love to see a L-105 produced- don't see any comonality though on those though. As a thought about something that might work as additional production but as Alcos- The WP class M-100 has a strong resemblance to the UP early challengers (except in the tenders) I had not compared the sizing though on drivers and cylinders

Now if we want to consider Baldwin articulated look alikes how about 2-8-8-2's WP's and the Rio Grande's L-131 and L132 were quite similar with  dome and feedwater heater differences

I could not find a good builders photo online but for comparison

Jim

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,320 posts
Posted by timz on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 11:11 AM

Overmod
WM used a more conventional 222 tubes and 60 flues at 23' length, but D&RGW (for a dual-service engine) had only 61 tubes (!) and 238 3.5" flues (!!)

No reason to be surprised at the difference. Apparently WM used a Type A superheater and DRGW used an E.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,295 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 12:50 PM

timz
No reason to be surprised at the difference. Apparently WM used a Type A superheater and DRGW used an E.

For those who don't know: type A has four return passes in a comparatively large flue (5.5" on the WM engines) and type E has four separate passes in four adjacent flues of smaller diameter (initially 3.5" on the L-105s).

One problem with the type E in general was that they produced 'crazy high' levels of superheat when the engines were run at sustained high output.  The L-105 design was revised to have only 194 4" flues in the available sheet space -- I have no information how the element design changed, but it would be interesting to see a comparison.

Likewise, the FGA in these flues as "populated" would be interesting to see for various combustion-gas mass flows.  Remember that the L-105 as built had flues with 9.62sq.in. area, compared to the WM locomotive with more conventional 23.76 -- but it had roughly four times the number of flues; the later version had over 3x the number of flues at 12.56 area.  That would involve a fairly hellacious amount of induced turbulence for comparable mass flow...  

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 2,543 posts
Posted by Backshop on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 3:55 PM

How many of the differences mentioned would be noticable on an HO scale locomotive, which is what the OP is asking about?  Many seem to be internal.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,295 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 6:28 PM

He's got this all over the forums -- weirdly I answered the question about modeling in the Classic Trains thread (where rcdrye posed it) but not in the MR thread.

Many of the dimensions are close.  If you used some care in the chassis construction and made the boiler 'modular' you could probably get something that could be detailed and painted to stand in for one or the other if seen going by on a club layout.

The problem is that most of the detail design is in fact off, and for what the model would cost to develop and market, I suspect most potential customers would want accuracy.

The original question asked about parts for the full-size locomotives.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,295 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 6:31 PM

He's got this all over the forums -- weirdly I answered the question about modeling in the Classic Trains thread (where rcdrye posed it) but not in the MR thread.

Many of the dimensions are close.  If you used some care in the chassis construction and made the boiler 'modular' you could probably get something that could be detailed to stand in in a club layout.

The problem is that most of the detail design would in fact be off, and for what the model would cost to develop and market, I suspect most potential customers would want accuracy.

  • Member since
    March 2020
  • 290 posts
Posted by Engi1487 on Friday, February 23, 2024 3:59 PM

Overmod

He's got this all over the forums -- weirdly I answered the question about modeling in the Classic Trains thread (where rcdrye posed it) but not in the MR thread.

Many of the dimensions are close.  If you used some care in the chassis construction and made the boiler 'modular' you could probably get something that could be detailed to stand in in a club layout.

The problem is that most of the detail design would in fact be off, and for what the model would cost to develop and market, I suspect most potential customers would want accuracy.

 



Hey Overmod. Thank you very much for your informative comments. I posted the same question to the three main forums to get as much information as possible. Prehaps there are some on the Classic Trains forum, who may not comment often on the MRR forum. Just a way of covering more ground.

Is is posible we could PM via email, as I would love to talk more. The Kalmbach Trains private conversation fuction is not working, so no way to PM anyone here.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,295 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, February 23, 2024 6:26 PM

If you've ever PMed someone on the Kalmbach system, you can scroll to that 'conversation' and still reply to it.  The only thing that is broken is starting new conversations.

I'm pretty sure you have both PMed and emailed me over the years...

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy