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.
I 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 eng
After I had posted my 12:25 PM response to this topic I decided to Google triplex locomotives and confirmed that the information I had provided in my last cited paragraph was, indeed, correct. I also looked in the index of my Kalmbach Guide to North American Steam Locomotives and, wallah! there was an entry for - are you ready for this? - triplex locomotives; I have no idea why I even buy these books if I’m not going to use them.
It appears that Virginian was, indeed, at the forefront of steam locom
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
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.
my skills are not really that good… mainly at trying to figure out the scale size and getting it historically correct… i can build box cars and other eazy stuff but nothing complexe as this
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.
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!
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.
Back in the days when brass locomotives used to cost about $45 (so you KNOW I’m going back a while, LOL!) Railroad Model Craftsman had an editor whose name I wish I could remember, but cannot–who used to take brass locos–yes, BRASS locos–and kitbash them into things you just would not believe. One year, he tackled all of the Santa Fe articulateds and came up with 2-8-8-2’s (the PFM 1950 Santa Fe Consolidations hacked and hewed together), then came up with a double-motored Santa Fe 2-10-10-2 that was just the DAMNDEST thing I ever saw! He even did the flex-boiler 2-6-6-2 out of what I assume was a couple of Prairies.
I was just thinking about those articles, since several of you have thought of ‘kit-bashing’ either a Virginian 2-10-10-2 or a Triplex. I was wondering if you wrote RMC, if they might have files on those articles to give you some ideas. They’d be back in the late 'fifties, I think. It might be worth a try. Wish my information was better, but I remember that I was still in high school, and every time I’d open a copy of RMC, my jaw would drop! OHMYGAW, he’s at it AGAIN!
Both the VGN and AT&SF 2-10-10-2 had ~57" drivers, so the Spectrum 2-10-2 is a good starting point. The Bowser, Mantua, P2K and IHC 2-10-x all have ~62" drivers.
The VGN 2-8-8-8-4 also had ~ 57" drivers. The P2K 2-8-8-2 (two of them) would probably be the best starting point for the chassis.
The Erie 2-8-8-8-2 had ~62" drivers. Spectrum, Bowser, Mantua or IHC 2-8-0, Bowser, Mantua or IHC 2-8-2.
There was an article in Mainline Modeler about the same time that the Spectrum N&W J was announced that showed techniques for building steam locomotive superstructures from plastic. The focus of the article was a N&W J on the Plus chassis. The Spectrum J, and later BLI J made this project superfluous, but the techniques are very valuable.
today i went to the local hobbyshop and talked to the owner and he told me it is alot easier to build a 2-8-8-8-2 or a 2-8-8-8-4 then a 2-10-10-2 he said to build a triplex i would need to get a IHC 2-8-8-2 and he could order me a extra driving mechanism and all i would have to do is modify the tender and figure out how to make it articulate and this will give the engine three power motors and i could have all three run on dcc… where as if i were to model the 2-10-10-2 i would have to modify a lot more and with my skills it may look like crap so i am going to try and do the 2-8-8-8-2 as soon as i can get the money thanks for all the help and if any one has more info or photos and other information that i could use on the project i will be greatful
The RMC editor was Bill Shopp and he in furiated many people with his good enough philosophy. My firat E44 electrics were made from a Bill Shopp conversion of a U25C. Some people started a group to stop him from converting other engines and he joined the group! One I remember is the ATSF Bull Moose that had an expansion joint in the middle of the boiler. he used a pipe nipple for that one. They all looked pretty good to me when he was done.
First, I know this is a very old posting and no one will likely read it but I wanted to add this little bit that even google can’t find-I believe the person you are talking about is “Speedy Johnson” He was commisioned to build a one-off for the railroad and he did-except he also made one for hismself.
Speedy was my Uncle’s father-in-law and so i went over there a few times. The train eventually ended up in my uncle’s house who was himself a collector and model railroader.
I just wanted to add that note because the man lived in a time before the internet.