Alright so after I picked up that Spectrum 4-8-2, I’m looking to buy my second steamer. (I’m considdering designing part of my layout for backdated opperating sessions and photography of a late 1950s prototype) Since everyone was very helpful (thanks!) the first time, I’ll ask for advice again: I’m looking for an engine for hauling fast freight short distances, part of the terrain would be mountainous. I’m thinking the new P2K Berkshire would do it, but I also recall that some railroads were using 4-8-4s for fast freight service in the transtion era, so that could be an option too I guess? Anyways, my layout is freelanced on the northwestern corner of Lake Ontario, and the engine I want is for a government line, so I can justify them buying quite a bit secondhand. Well thanks for the help! Cheers! ~METRO
In mountainous territory, a 2-10-4, 4-8-2 or an articulated would be much more likely than a 4-8-4 for fast frieght. A P2K Berk probably will not do the job for you. A Spectrum USRA Heavy Mountain is a good choice for this particular task, a USRA Heavy Mikado (BLI) would be another good choice.
The 68 to 70 inch drivered Berkshires like the P2K model are flat lands race horses - Buffalo to St Louis or Chicago at 70+ mph. In addition, few if any of the Berks made it to the used equipment market - few if any modern steamer did.
The 63" drivers on the USRA Mikes (and the Canadian 2-10-4) provide in service speed capabilities to 60 mph or so, and go lower speed performance for the grades. The taller drivers provide less low speed performance needed.
Metro;
Good choice on the berk. Another would be one of the 2-8-2’s that are available now from, BLI, Bowser, etc. Before someone says the 2-8-2’s are too slow for a “fast” freight, keep in mind that most RR’s did use a 2-8-2 as a fast freight engine. Some even pressed the 2-8-2’s into substitute passenger engines, when their main power was unavailable, Georgia, Atlanta and West Point, L&N, SRR.
Yes 4-8-4’s were double duty engines. I even have some pictures of the venerable N&W J’s in freight duty in the late 50’s.
Does anyone make a 2-10-4 in HO scale? It would also be nice if someone would make a USRA 2-8-8-2 or 2-6-6-2 instead of just the later N&W Y-series. I could really use one of those for helper service I took a look at the BLI and Trix 2-8-2s and I believe Trix only makes the light USRA design while BLI makes both light and heavy. Cheers! ~METRO
BLI makes a 2-10-4 I think. (I say I think because SRR never had these and I never paid much attention to the ads from BLI). Bowser’s kit is a light mike, but the boiler appears to be the Cary USRA casting and has many issues, but is “pretty” nevertheless.
Several years ago Athearn made a 2-8-2, as a Genesis engine, but has BAD balance issues making it a poor puller unless some work is done to improve the balance.
Bachmann Spectrum makes a USRA 2-6-6-2 that is a good engine.
4-8-2 ‘Mountain’ engines were originally designed for heavy passenger service, but many wound up in freight service. The firebox was just not big enough to provide maximum steam on long high speed runs. Hence, the 4-6-4 and 4-8-4 were developed. In lower speed freight sevice they were very successful.
2-8-4 ‘Berkshire’ engines were originally designed for NYC/B&A mountain freight service over the Berkshires to Boston. Lima eventually changed the design to have 69" or 70" drivers rather than the original 63" drivers and and they became the classic ‘Super Power’ engine.
4-8-4 ‘Northern’ engines were originally designed for transcon passenger service on the Northern Pacific. This design became quite popular for both passenger or freight service. Many of the engines were built for freight service, with steam lines for emergency passenger service. 74" drivered versions were quite popular in freight seervice. 4-8-4’s in dedicated passenger service many times had 80" drivers, though the N&W ‘J’ class passenger engines had 70" drivers in deference to the mountain running that was required for their passenger trains. The 4-8-4 was a good ‘dual service’ engine as it had the 4 wheel pilot truck for high speed tracking, and a large firebox to generate lots of steam at high speed.
USRA 2-6-6-2 & 2-8-8-2 engines were basically slow speed freight luggers, many times employed in mountain districts where high speed was not an issue.
The above said, there are always exceptions to the above ‘rules’.
Jim
The 2-8-2 Mikes have been used by several railroads for mixed service, so you can too, although I can’t speak for a specific railroad.
BLI makes two 2-10-4 models, the C&O T1 and the PRR J1. I got the J1 from Outlet Direct at BLI’s site on the Web. You can get them without sound, too, at an even greater reduction if that is an issue.
Why you wanna bait us like that? Pics man, pics!
Given the geographical area specified, a 2-8-4 would be the logical choice unless you plan to run freights long enough to be in three time zones. If only a small portion of the route is a significant upgrade, prototype practice in the steam era would be to provide a helper for that grade only, not overpower the train for the flatter parts of its route.
The “dual-service” 4-8-4 almost always ended up as a purely passenger engine, or a “use on highest priority freight only when not needed for passengers.” It was definitely not in common use in ordinary fast freight service.
Articulateds with no or 2-wheel trailing trucks were always slow speed machines, fine as drag locos or helpers, but not for mile-a-minute service. As for the J, it had 70 inch drivers more for commonality with the 2-6-6-4 class A than for the mountains, and was theoretically balanced for 140MPH!
Chuck
Just tell that to the Western Maryland or the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac who purchased modern 4-8-4’s strickly for fast freight or dual service duties. Although the RF&P was a fairly smooth railroad, the Western Maryland certainly had it’s share of mountain grades. The ‘Potomacs’ and ‘Generals’ and ‘Governors’ were great engines (southern roads couldn’t call their engines ‘northerns’).
The RF&P and the Atlantic Coast Line used 4-6-2 Pacifics that were built strickly for freight service. The Pacific is another engine most people associate only with passenger trains.
So, certainly seeing a modern 4-8-4 on the head end of a freight is surely good looking and prototypical.
Dale Latham
I guess I have to agree with Dale. Most of those smaller drivered Northerns(if you can consider 74" drivers small) were purchased for freight service. Here in the Midwest it is very flat and under 80" drivered Northerns were purchased for freight service: RI/Milw/SOO/CB&Q are fine example of engines purchased for freight service. Now, 80" drivered engines like the ATSF 2900 class, SP GS4, and GN S2 were purchased for passenger service.
Jim
Mountainous terrain really doesn’t tell us the whole picture. What are the grades like, and how many sharp curves were on a grade? THOSE are the true determining factors behind figuring out which steam engines a road’s mechanical department would buy. Case in point: the Virginian’s mainline versus the NKP’s main to St Louis. The Virginian went through very mountainous terrain, but their main was engineered superbly, so grades and curves were easy on trains. The NKP’s St Louis line, by comparison, was built on a narrow gauge grade, so trains regularly stalled on the steep grades and sharp curves.
So what, right? The nature of the ruling grade affects the tonnage an engine can lug uphill without assistance. If a road wants to run fast trains (and fast is comparative; national average train speed was 12 MPH), they have to buy engines that suit the terrain. There’s no one perfect answer, but the N&W’s use of articulateds in the mountains was a good answer, as were the NKP’s 2-8-4s and the IC’s 4-8-2s on the flatlands. And all were good crossover engines too: the N&W ran Y-6’s on the flat at speed, and the NKP and IC both used their engines on VERY hilly terrain.
Yes, but no Berks were ever resold. Nor were most superpower engines, as they were generally used until the road decided to dieselize, by which time smaller, poorer roads had already done so. It’s no surprise that only financially stable large roads kept their steam until the end; buying lots of expensive diesels actually saved roads money.
It’s simpler to explain if you just say that the engines were bought new by your road during the WWII power crunch. Adding a class of four or six engines isn’t uncommon, especially for smaller roads.
[quote]
but I also recall that some railroads were using 4-8-4s fo
I have to disagree about railroads not selling ‘used’ steam engines post WW2. The Missabe picked up used engines from other US Steel railroads, such as their ex-B&LE 2-10-4’s and ex-EJ&E 2-8-2’s, and also bought some 2-8-2’s from the Rio Grande. (They also leased a DRGW 4-8-2 for a year as the engine was in transit to another RR that had bought it - I think the W&LE??)
On the other hand, they sold some of their smaller steam engines to the Duluth and NorthEastern and Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern (although I’d have to check, the engines that went to the MNS might have been before the war?). I suspect many shortline, logging, and industrial railroads bought second hand steam too.
BTW…didn’t the Pennsy buy some used engines from the Santa Fe or one of the other western lines??
I could be terribly wrong, and please excuse me if I am, but the ‘mountainous’ area around Lake Ontario would be closer to the glacial deposits that Canadian Pacific had to contend with–difficult because of their granitic configurations, but not really ‘mountainous’ as far as severe grades. For that, I think that heavy freight locos would be served pretty well in that part of the country by 2-8-2’s, possibly 2-8-4’s and most definitely 4-8-2 Mountains for fast freight service.
Out here in California, the Southern Pacific assigned their M-3/4 and 5 Mountains to fast, heavy freight service in the Central Valley, between Bakersfield to the south and Red Bluff in the north, a distance of almost 300 miles. The locomotives had originally been built for passenger service system-wide, but proved to be just as adaptable for fast freight service when they were supplanted by the various GS-series of 4-8-4’s. They even proved their worth on both the Shasta and Donner Pass divisions, two of the most severe of the SP’s mountain divisions either as helpers or as heavy freight locos.
I don’t think you could go wrong with using 4-8-2’s on your projected layout. They were an incredibly versatile locomotive, and extremely popular with a lot of North American railroads (though Canadian Pacific preferred 2-10-4’s). Or, for that matter, if you prefer modeling a CN-inspired prototype, the 4-8-4 would be just up your alley–Canadian National had, as I understand, the largest fleet of 4-8-4’s in North America.
Tom [:)]
In reading the author’s original criteria, I have to go along with Nigel’s recommendations. If you want an articulated, the newer P2K 2-8-8-2s come with a traction tire, so they will pull plenty good. I have 5 of the older non-traction tired versions and they pull enough after a little weighting to suit me. The N&W versions suit my N&W modelling of course, but they also make a USRA version (which, if you want to get technical, was also an N&W design). But these engines were most assuredly not modern. If you want a modern articulated there are several Challenger types to choose from, or you could pretend you bought an A from N&W, new, out of Roanoke Shops. Since N&W were the last to dieselize, they didn’t sell many used steamers.
I will admit you could pull a C&O and put high horsepower 2-8-4s and/or 2-6-6-6s in the mountains, but I think a good Mike 2-8-2 or a 2-10-2 would fit, better unless you want another Mountain. I don’t think there were any small drivered Superpower engines made in late steam, and you did say you wanted “modern” steam. I wouldn’t put a 4-8-4 on freight. Yes, N&W did it, but the Js were almost new, high availability, high tractive effort engines, out of work because management had made a decision to put diesels on the passenger trains at any cost. And they were mostly put to work hauling coal. And yes ATSF did put huge Northerns to work on freight, but you are not going to be hauling sugar beets and the like across the Great Plains at high speed. RF&P was a flat, short, high traffic, bridge road. Western Maryland strove to be different and was (not saying good or bad, but deliberately different).
Good luck, and welcome to the wonderful world of steam. Get one with sound and you may really be in trouble. 
You’re absolutely right about the terrain surrounding Lake Ontario, but that’s the beauty of freelancing 
The mountains in my layout don’t exist in the real world, but since i wanted some, I redrew a topograpical map a bit so that the Laurnentians have another offshoot range (albet smaller and older) on the northwestern tip of Lake Ontario. The mountains will look like a cross between the Mississippi River Bluffs in Western Wisconsin (which because of the river have a very old worn look to them) and the Adorandacks in northern New York (which are an older offshoot of the Laurentians themselves) The main line through the mountains is a relatively well engineered thing, with an NYC subsidiary being the initial road to build it. The curves will be very broad, however there will be short patches of hard grades (so that there will be a need for helper service) I’m also planning one branch that will serve a couple resort towns and a decient sized sawmill complex, this one will have a bit tighter curves but nothing too drastic, and about the same grades. I’m thinking that a 2-8-8-2 would be perfect for helper service on this (in my modern setting I’m using a pair of AC4400s) and then I could use a stardard road steamer to haul the rest of the way. I’m liking the BLI 2-8-2 but just how much speed did those have? Also an interesting thing I found while researching, the TH&B had Canada’s only Berkshires, which were built off of American prototypes by MLW. That could make it a bit easier to justify say any Alco product on the line as a simmilar thing. Hope this helps put it into perspective a bit more Cheers! ~METRO
2-10-4 BLI offers PRR, C&O and the 1st AT&SF models.
2-8-8-2 P2K (now Walthers) offers the USRA version in addition to the N&W version.
2-6-6-2 Spectrum model is very very good.
A couple of loose ends to wrap up:
The 2-8-8-2 was not a “fast” locomotive in any accepted definition of the word. While the N&W’s Y6 class (probably the best balanced true Mallet) could reach 50MPH (maybe,) the resultant earthquake would bounce cups off the tables of trackside diners. They reached maximum horsepower at 25MPH. (I personally define “fast” as 60MPH sustained speed, which implies drivers in the 69 inch diameter range and a four wheel trailing truck.)
Pennsy’s Santa Fe acquisitions were 2-10-4’s which were mechanically and operationally very close to their home-grown (to a Chessie design) Texas types. That was at the time that Pennsy was learning (expensively) that duplex drives were not the answer, and they were desperate for power.
As N&W’s first lawyer President, Stuart Saunders was directly responsible for putting the Class J out of the passenger business, and he had to lease RF&P diesels to do it. He wasn’t willing to wait for delivery of N&W diesels with train heat boilers. (He later went on to preside over the Penn Central debacle.)
In the late 1940’s, L&N acquired brand-new 2-8-4’s, and provided a four-unit set of covered wagons to help them on the one severe grade between Louisville and Nashville. The reason? Speed up the average freight. (Unsurprisingly, they did.)
Chuck
You can’t go wrong with these:
Bachmann Spectrum USRA Heavy & Light 4-8-2 Mountain
Bachmann Spectrum USRA 2-6-6-2
P2K 2-8-8-2 (I understand that P2K steamers have issues with pulling power, though)
P2K 2-8-4 Berkshire (ditto to the above)
BLI Heavy 2-8-2 Mikado
BLI C&O T1 2-10-4 & PRR J1 2-10-4
BLI PRR M1a/M1b 4-8-2 Mountain
Or the Reading - the whole reason the T-1 Northerns were built was for the fast freight traffic on the Crossline.
–Randy