4-6-0 Popularity

Such a situation would rarely be built as narrow gauge. There is no significant cost advantage to building roadbed with heavier rail (for higher speeds), gentle grades, and broad curves as narrow gauge. Might as well build in standard gauge and enjoy the economies and advantages of interchange.

Narrow gauge in the US was a failed economics experiment in the late 19th Century. The cost savings of building in narrow gauge did not materialize except in the mountains and other rugged areas. Speeds were kept low by the physics of narrow gauge, and the cost savings taken in roadbed and track. Once true car interchange between standard gauge railroads became reality, the cost of trans-loading cargoes was the proverbial nail in the coffin for narrow gauge.

Because of the speed restrictions, all narrow gauge engines had significantly smaller drivers than their standard gauge counterparts. Typically, 51" was a small driver in standard gauge, and used only on switchers and drag engines. In narrow gauge, almost all drivers were 48" or less, and many were around 36" diameter. The smaller drivers limited speeds to around 45MPH or less, even on straight track, and most narrow gauge trains operated around 20-30MPH.

The 4-6-0 was a valid narrow gauge configuration, but not nearly as popular as the 4-4-0, 2-6-0, and 2-8-0. Several 4-6-0s were used by the SP narrow gauge lines in California, and by the Tweestie in the East. A few saw service in Colorado. I am sure there are others I don’t know about. I strongly recommend reading or subscribing to Narrow Gauge & Short Line Gazette if you are truly interested in learning about narrow gauge or short lines. Other great sources of prototype information

… such as the Pacific Coast Railway in the San Luis Obispo CA area, the Nevada-California-Oregon Railroad in northeastern California, the Oahu Railway in Hawaii, etc.

Actually, over the years the CNR rostered about 560 Ten Wheelers and roughly 825 Consolidations. There was a wholesale scrapping of older Ten Wheelers shortly after the CNR was formed, and again in the 1930s, while the number of Consolidations decreased only slightly in the same time period. For the most part, the Consolidations were more “modern” locos.

Their Moguls, 446 strong in 1923, were down to 260 by 1933 and there were only 60 left by '43.

In contrast, by 1943 there were 239 Ten Wheelers in service and 543 Consolidations, the shift to heavier locos no doubt attributable to the heavier trains of the period.

All of the above notwithstanding, we seem to have come back to the same conversation as in your earlier thread: the locos which you prefer do not prototypically fit with the railroad which you wish to build.

Still, there’s no need to despair: simply freelance the line which you envision. With careful planning and attention to detail, you should be able to create a layout which pleases your aesthetic senses, yet still looks believeable to most observers. Anyone raising objections should be escorted swiftly to the exit: after all, you’re the only one whose needs must be met.

Wayne

The reason for this narrow gauge, broad curve line is to save money, as the railway runs through some of Ontario’s harshest terrain, like granite, old growth forest and lots of bridges, and BIG ones. Does that make sense?

No.

Ed

Clearing trees wasn’t any more arduous than other grading work, and those trees were useable, too. Bridges wouldn’t be much different whether it was for narrow gauge or standard gauge. If you’ve ever flown over northern Ontario in a small plane, you know that in almost all areas, those rivers run between lakes, which are everywhere. As for wide curves to get around the Canadian Shield, they’d likely be wide enough to situate your line, at its northern-most, in southern Ontario. [swg] That’s the reason the northern Ontario portion of the CPR was among the last sections built.

I don’t recall you saying anything about the room which you have available for a layout, but it may come into play when you get around to constructing those “broad curves”. If you can manage 48" radii (or bigger), a narrow gauge line would probably look pretty good. You could build the terrain to suit, with big trees (at least 12" tall), lots of rock outcroppings, and as many (or as few) bridges as you wish. This would also allow you to run whichever locos you prefer, and there’s no need to justify any of your choices.

Wayne

If I were looking to do narrow gauge in Ontario - I’ve only been in Southern Ontario and along the Lake Huron shore - I would use either the Michigan or Maine (2ft) narrow gauge lines as my inspiration.

Another inspiring article for your situation might be Out-of-the-armchair layout by Barry Cott in Model Railroad Planning 2003. Barry based an On3 shelf layout on the Key Valley Railway which was an Ontario logger near the Eastern shore of Lake Huron. The real KVR was standard gauge but Barry modeled it in narrow gauge. Most of the article describes how he chose what portions and facets of the KVR to model in a limited space.

I have a similar situation for my Oregon logger. In reality, very few logging lines in the Washington and Oregon coastal mountains were built as narrow gauge. Narrow gauge was generally obsolete by the time logging in the coastal mountains hit the big time. By focusing on Port Orford cedar and redwood instead of Douglas fir, I was able to move my logging line to the late 19th Century when narrow gauge was still considered to be a viable alternative. And it gave me a chance to use dog hole schooners instead of steam ships to take the prized lumber to the California markets. But the choice of Port Orford cedar and redwood limited me to particular areas of Southern coastal Oregon.

The Bachmann On30 4-6-0 is certainly a nice locomotive, and would be well-suited as a single engine (or one of several) for a small narrow gauge line in the '20s or '30s in Ontario. It’s a fairly credible model of a Tweetsie (ET&WNC) 3ft gauge prototype, and Baldwin catalog locomotives.

Fred W

&

Anybody know anything about 4-6-0 tank engines?

Most I’ve ever read about were used in commuter service, and often acquired a 2, 4, or even 6 wheel trailing truck to support the fuel bunker.

Actually, the hardest part of the Canadian transcontinental line to build was between Sault Ste. Marie (“The Soo”) and Port Arthur / Ft.William (now called Thunder Bay). The north shore of Lake Superior is extremely rugged semi-mountainous terrain, requiring many cuttings and tunnels…and what areas were flat, were swamps.

Someone mentioned surplus US engines, IIRC the first CP engine the “Countess of Dufferin” was a 4-4-0 bought used by the CP from Northern Pacific.

I suspect that since the CP came along later than many US railroads, they just bought more ‘modern’ engines because that’s what was being built at that time. By the 1880’s most railroads were finding they had pretty much hit the limit of how big you could build a 4-4-0, so the 4-6-0, 2-8-0 and 2-6-0 were what they were buying after about 1885 or 1890. When the Erie Mining Co. railroad was built in northern Minnesota in the 1950’s they bought RS-11 and F-9 engines, because that was “state of the art” at that time.