Lima proposed NG 2-6-6-4. Would it have a good ideal and who might had a use for such a locomotive. Gary
There were a couple of narrow gage 2-6-6-2 s used in the US. When did Lima propose this? By the 30s, there was a shortage of business on the NG, not a shortage of locos.
Uintah was one that fed rumors for years. But getting around a 66 degree curve? There is a Trains article on that somewhere in the past. I thought they were loyal to Baldwin…
The Tweetsie was considering an NG 2-6-6-2 at one time.
The only conceivable use I can imagine is for export, and specifically for export as a ‘one-and-a-half-GELSA-Berkshire’ (or 4-8-4) for heavy service on meter-gauge in Brazil (and later, perhaps, Bolivia?) – someplace that would value and presumably be able to care for contemporarily-modern steam power and ‘all that implies’.
Almost anywhere else a Garratt or Meyer would be a preferable operating solution.
African railroads at as wide as Cape gauge had little use for Mallet-pattern chassis – while part of that might be a British Empiyah thing, the reports I remember seeing were on the technical merits.
What IS the source for this claim, and how is it documented in that source?
There is an enormous practical difference implied in the increase from 2-6-6-2 to 2-6-6-4, presumably with large firebox entirely behind drivers, unlike the Challenger-style configuration. It would likely be limited to narrow gauge of relatively heavy construction, perhaps with relatively good civil engineering; absence of sharp or poorly-transitioned curves might follow.
In the book articulated steam locomoticves vol 2 on page 245 is the drawing of this locomotive. Gary
I just imagined one on the East Broad Top. Would probably have needed re-engineered wyes at Mt. Union, Orbisonia and Robertsdale. Not having the specs, I’d guess that Pogue bridge would’ve been sufficient. Clearances in Sideling Hill tunnel and curvature elsewhere might have presented a problem.
I’ll leave the logging roads and export business to their respective mavens.
Rick
What about the turntable length at Rockhill Furnace/Orbisonia?
mudchicken,
A 66 degree curve! ??
A curve that changes direction 66 degrees in the space of 100 feet?!?!
(Maybe you accidentally tapped the 6 twice?)
Isn’t just 6 degrees really tight for railroad track?
[quote user=“MidlandMike”]
What about the turntable length at Rockhill Furnace/Orbisonia?
Not knowing the wheelbase or length, I couldn’t guess.
I was there once for the last run of the season. It was already dark when they dumped and poked out the fire before moving the mike onto the table. I was allowed to help with the armstrong lever. Then they opened a valve on the left steam chest. There was an enormous roar and steam went horizontally between the roundhouse and the paint shed and into the night. Memory fails, but I think they used a motorized unit to shove her into a stall for the winter. Everything else was unforgettable.
Rick
Read 'em and weep, kiddo…
While Africa was not fertile ground for Mallet locomotives, The Netherlands East Indies and particularly their State Railways were big fans of Mallet types.
At first there were 33 2-6-6-0 non superheated tank locomotives that had rather odd looking tanks sitting clear of the boiler in both vertical and horizontal directions built from 1904 to 1911 from German and Dutch builders.
These were superseded by 2-12-2 superheated tank engi
Why would they bother? If they’re using anything with no trailing truck, the basic Y-class lessons – low end overhang, as much weight on drivers as possible concordant with bidirectional guiding; firebox largely over drivers just as with Challengers; easy IP injection for easy running in compound. No need for deep firebox entirely behind drivers, with extra carrying axle for the weight of circulators or accommodation to higher pressures. No length increase of the rigid chassis. No increased construction cost of frame or bed. They won’t appreciate what it would give them: higher efficient horsepower at speed.
I would argue that a properly-‘boosted’ Y6 did most of what the Y7 would practically have done, and much more flexibly and efficiently. Once you can run ‘balanced compound’ at 45mph you have what N&W needed for almost all its time freight… with those roller-rod 2-6-6-4s used for whatever traffic needs stable speed at high horsepower, and it is interesting to consider just what those traffic needs might be (and whether they apply or could be applied in countries built out in narrow-gauge in the various ways seen historically…)
Outside select parts of South America, I see little optimal use for a ‘modern’ 2-6-6-4 to replace older steam compared to competing forms of locomotive – particularly a well-engineered locomotive with comparable engines, but patterned as an efficient 2-6-6-2.
Lima was proposing a four wheel trailing truck for almost everything. Loree proposed in 1917 that Rio Grande buy seven 2-6-6-2s for the Marshal pass line and the trustee that took after WW1 pushed for 2-6-6-2s but the board said no to both ideals I wonder if Lima heard of this and proposed this locomotive. Gary
I note that link indicates Uintah 51 at 246 000 lbs was “the heaviest narrow gauge steam locomotive ever built.”
The SS Java 1919 Alco 2-8-8-0s were 294 100 lbs and the European copies heavier…
But indeed those curves were sharp.
Peter
Those curves on the Uintah sound like the curves that I am quite familiar with on the CTA.
That’s astounding! Thanks for the link. Now THERE is a place where the engineer can look back and see the president dining through the window!
THERE is a place where the engineer might be able to converse with the President dining through the window… [:-^]
Except with the 7 1/2 per cent grade on that hairpin curve, the engineer would have been looking over the roof of the diner.
I didn’t say he wouldn’t have to shout… [:)]