European freight yard operations vs US Operations



As were the USRA 2-6-6-2s: one of my favorite locomotives.
"During the tenure of the USRA, 30 of these articulated steam locomotives were built. The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway (C&O) and Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway (W&LE) ordered the USRA 2-6-6-2 Mallet. The first Mallet was delivered to the W&LE in 1919 for $71,966.94. Later, the Nickel Plate Road (NKP) leased them from the W&LE, renumbering them for use on its rails. With two independently swiveling driver and truck mechanisms (which is also used on modern diesel locomotives), this limber giant’s unique design allowed it to negotiate branch lines and tight curves while hauling larger consists than its smaller cousins in the USRA series.
The Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad ordered the first of these compact USRA 2-6-6-2 steam locomotives from Alco in 1911. It was a massive locomotive for the time, and it performed well enough for the C&O to order additional, but slightly modified, versions right through 1923. These locomotives were designed to replace the 2-8-0 Consolidations for the coal drags on the C&O’s Hinton Division. The 2-6-6-2s could handle more tonnage than the double-headed pair of 2-8-0s they replaced, and they burned less coal in the process. The 2-6-6-2s proved to be ideal mine run engines as their power and flexibility plus low weight on drivers made them ideal for the curving and heavily graded branches in the mountains of Virginia and West Virginia.
An additional ten (10) locomotives were built in 1949. These C&O Class H6 2-6-6-2s, numbered 1300 to 1309, were the last steam locomotives produced by Baldwin for use in the United States. The last of these were retired in 1957. Most of the locomotives were scrapped, but, the last two produced were retained by C&O as examples of their steam heritage. The 1308 is in the care of the Collis P. Huntingdon Chapter of the National Railway Historical Society [1] at Huntington, West Virginia, while the 1309 is in the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Museum, at Baltimore, Maryland."
~Pete
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

Thanks for that, Tim. I had forgotten about the Y6bs - but, without making excuses, N&W were a bit different weren't they. And thanks for the additional information Pete. The USRA designs and their derivatives carried on well into the last days of steam didn't they.
I shall have to re-read a number of volumes! 8-)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:39:00 -0700 (PDT), Twibil wrote:

Really? The high pressure engine was somehow pivoted separately from the frame? Model mfgrs do this all the time to enable reduced radii, but a prototype? How'd they manage it? Drawings, please.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not true!

They didn't. The boiler was attached to the rear engine and only the front engine was free to pivot.
--
Cheers.

Roger T.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 04:44:23 -0700, Roger T. wrote:

Thought so - thanks for the confirmation.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Caple wrote:

See MRR's Loco 1: steam locomotives, p. 235ff. Ther are also lots of photos showing how the front engine swung away from the main engine on curves.
Tha back end of the engine frams was pivoted to the main frame, the front end had a centering arrangement, and the steam lines had rotoationg glands and sliding joints.
FWIW, in the 70s IIRC, MRR ran a series of articles on upgrading an HO Big Boy, which included duplicating the front end centering system: two facing shallow vees with a roller between. the weight of the loco tended to keep that roller centered.
HTH
wolf k.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:43:35 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

I know that the front engine (low pressure engine on a Mallet) pivots - I work regularly as a docent describing SP's AC-14 #4294, the only surviving cab forward. In fact, we have a clamp lamp attached under the frame shining on the pivot point - although most visitors don't notice unless it's pointed out. But the rear (or in the case of a cab forward, the front) engine, to my knowledge, was always part of the rigid main frame in North American articulateds, compound or otherwise, with that engine, the cab and firebox and boiler always maintaining the same alignment while the engine under the smokebox end of the locomotive swiveling to either side while supporting the boiler on a sliding bearing. Do you mean otherwise?
--
Steve

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

An AC-14? Cool!
I always thought they stopped at AC-12! };-P
~Pete
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:32:30 -0700 (PDT), Twibil wrote:

Yeah, steam lives! (the docent's parking lot shows a lot of stickers with a feather that say "WP Lives") Anyway, dyslexic fingers strike again.
And now you can get a 1:20.3 scale model for only a 50th of the original AC-12 cost.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Caple wrote: [...] But the rear (or in the case of a cab forward, the

No, I understand it just the way you describe it.
Cheers, wolf k.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:43:01 -0700, Steve Caple

The Meyer and Kitson Meyer engines did this. As did the Beyer Garrats, Fairlies and Masons (Mason's first articulated engine was laid out like a double Fairlie: two boilers with the cab in the middle and two power trucks.
But if a Mallet did this it wouldn't be a Mallet in thr first place.
The first Garratt, which was a compound:
http://whr.bangor.ac.uk/2004/ar-k1-120904-2.jpg
Note that later Garratts had the cylinders at the outer ends of the power trucks.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, I remember seeing UK LMS Garratts as a kid, on the Birmingham - Derby line. Always scruffy and very dirty. They were not very successful, I understand that the wheel bearings were under sized, against Beyer Peacocks advice. I think I've got that right. They had a peculiar 'cement mixer' rotary coal bunker.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:16:11 +0100, Brian Bailey

Yes to both.
They were too big for the lines they ran on. They could pull trains too long for the yards, and sometimes the weight of the train broke the couplings.
It had been the Midland Railway's practice to use double headed 0-6-0s, typically 4Fs on the coal trains to London.
They wanted to replace these with a bigger engine. A Garrett is ideal for this sort of thing, but as you say, they retained too many standard Midland features that didn't get thrown out until Stanier took over, one of which were the poor axle bearings.
A less known problem is that the water columns were placed for double headed 0-6-0s. And the Garratts had different spacing for the tank fillers. So they would have to stop, fill the front tank and then draw forward, doubling the waiting time.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You got your attributions wrong. That was a quote. (That's what the little " marks mean.)
But not impossible anyway as the Beyer-Garretts did exactly that: both engine units swiveled with the boiler suspended between and above them.
~Pete
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:21:26 -0700 (PDT), Twibil wrote:

But where from? Wikipedia?
--
Steve

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:15:37 -0700, Steve Caple wrote:

Yep, Wiki. Edited to remove "two swiveling" and also "USRA" in reference to first C&O 2-6-6-2 order in 1911, before USRA existed.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good for you.
I noticed both of those, but I don't know how to correct a Wiki article so I left 'em be.
~Pete
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/1/2009 4:57 PM Twibil spake thus:
>

>>

Q: How do you correct a Wikipedia article? A: Sorry, that's impossible.
[not a riddle or a joke]
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wolf K wrote:

The Garratt had a problem which the Mallet didn't have. As a Garratt consumes water and coal, it's weight for traction becomes less thus TE reduces as the train rolls along. By having a conventional tender, this doesn't happen to the Mallet which retains all its weight for traction although it does have to lug the tender around.
The Garratt is probably more limited in water and fuel capacity too shown by some African Garratts having a water tank wagon connected.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Auxiliary tenders were not terribly uncommon in the dry American southwest either, and today the Union Pacific's Challenger 4-6-6-4 runs with not only it's own tender but with two additional auxiliary water tenders salvaged/converted from old gas-turbine tenders.
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/18739532.jpg
~Pete
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.