Anybody know what the longest fixed wheelbase loco ever made was? I’m thinking along the lines of a 2-12-2 or something similar. Anybody ever make a model of those in HO? Remember these are FIXED wheelsbases. Articulated locos, like Big Boy, Allegheny, EM-1/Yellowstoneare, are not fixed wheelbase.
We’re trying to see if the wheelbase crosses both points at the same time as it passes through a switch.
Good question. I do not know. The PRR T-1 may be one of the longer fixed wheel base locos being not articulated.
Well, among United States steam locomotives I think it was the UP’s 4-12-2 but I seem to recall something decidedly even more monsterous was built in the old USSR at one time (2-14-2 perhaps?).
CNJ831
Folks:
I’m not sure if the longest rigid wheelbase was on the UP 4-12-2 or the PRR S1, but I think it was one of those two. I don’t know exactly what the S1 had, but the UP engine had 30’ 8"
Even though I like the PRR and think the S1 is a classy-looking machine, I think the victory should be conceded to the 9000s, since they were a whole class of very practical engines, rather than a single prototype. They were handsome beasts, anyhow.
CNJ: That would be the Russian 4-14-4. Yugh.
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/russ/russrefr.htm
The world largest was the Soviet AA20, the 4-14-4 monster that destroyed every switch it crossed and had a disturbing tendency to try and straighten-out every curve it encountered. It was mothballed rather quickly after it was built.
The US record holder I beleive is the UP 4-12-2 …theres one on display at the Pomana Fairplex, it looks almost as long as the Big Boy there.
According to that web site, that 4-14-4 had a fixed wb of 32’ 11 5/8", so longer than the UP and PRR loco referenced above. But it also had universal joints on the side (coupling) rods and 3 sets of blind drivers. And not scrapped till 1960! (after 25 years of storage [:D] )
4- 14- 4 That wheel arrangement will be imbeded in my mind forever, is that bigger than an 0-6-0 ???
Only slightly [:D]
–Randy
[(-D][(-D][(-D]
I think that thing’s trailing truck is bigger than one of my five 0-6-0Ts - or maybe a couple of them!
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - needs two locos to get 14 drivers)
3T:
But one of your 0-6-0 tanks probably hauls more in a week than that Bolshevik aberration did in its whole lifetime.
I believe the longest rigid frame loco was the Q2 from the old PRR. 26ft 41/2 inches.
I guess it was a good thing that a 4-12-4 was enough–imagine that as a duplex or even a triplex…[:-^]
The longest US non-articulated locomotive was the PRR S-1 (6-4-4-6), at 77’-9" + 62’-3" = 140’-0" for combined engine & tender. (Note: You specified the length for the loco(motive), which comprises the engine and tender.) Coming in 2nd is the PRR Q-2, at 124’. The UP Big Boy 4-8-8-4, an articulated locomotive, was only 132’-10".
I’m not too sure what you’re trying to find out - which two points? And are you really interested only in the fixed wheelbase (drivers), or the entire length of the locomotive? If you’re thinking of just the fixed wheelbase, I’d say that on most of our model turnouts, an 8-drivered locomotive with drivers larger than 55 or 60" would almost certainly have drivers on the ends of the switch points and the frog at the same time. Certainly a model of the S-1 would.
The S-1 length comes out to approx. 10.71" in HO. That’s a longer distance than almost any “normal” HO switch, frog-to-point. I have a #8 curved Shinohara turnout on the Flint Hills Northern, and it measures 10.25" frogpoint-to-switchpoint.
Edit: Check out this site - interesting info there:
The photograph of the 4-14-4 is quite interesting. You’ll notice that both the #4 and #5 drivers have heavy counterweights. This is something I haven’t seen elsewhere. The main rod goes to the #4 driver. The extra heavy counterweight makes sense there. Why does the #5 set also have the same weights? And why does the #3 NOT have them. Also, the proportions look a little funny. The drawings claim a 67" driver. How does that relate to the guy standing next to the loco? It looks from his size that they’re quite a bit smaller. Considering that the USSR was into, shall we say, creative factualizing; I’ve got to wonder about all this. [paragraph break] Ed
Tthe heavily-clothed dude back by the gangway is standing on about a foot of snow, if it’s the same depth as that adjacent to the drivers. If he’s the fireman, he was probably built like a superheavyweight Olympic weight lifter, not a jockey. As for the counterweights, the rods between the main (#4) and #5 drivers appear to be tandem, and even beefier than the main rod.
Part of the odd appearance is undoubtedly due to the wider Russian track gauge.
The whole project was one of those Stalinist, “Ours is bigger than yours,” propaganda exercises. Like most such, the answer proved to be, “Bigger, si! Better, no!”
As for the comment about my 0-6-0, I don’t think that the 4-14-4 ever produced a revenue ton-meter. The 0-6-0s currently in service are motive power for a mixed train and a short string of hopper cars.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Based on the Russian standard track gauge of 60 inches, I’d estimate the size of those drivers at around 51-56".
EDIT: Sorry for the redundancy since this question had already been answered. Apparently one only has about 15 seconds to delete one’s own post.
The Russian 4-14-4’s got the 9000 beat. It had a rigid wheelbase of 32’ 11 5/8".
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/russ/russrefr.htm
Andre
This is information that I have been offered by another source. I won’t go on to debate or defend it, or to add to it; take it as it stands and do with it as you will.
"
The UP 9000 4-12-2s had an Alco lateral motion device on the 1st and 6th coupled axles, so the rigid or fixed wheelbase is not the quoted figure of 30’8", it’s whatever the wheelbase is between the 2nd and 5th axles. My understanding is that Alco developed their lateral motion devices specifically for the 9000s - they would have been a failure without them.
Likewise the Russian 4-14-4 had the leading truck and first coupled axle articulated on the Kraus-Hemholtz system, and a lateral motion device on the 7th coupled axle, so it too had a shorter rigid wheelbase than the figures being quoted, more like 22’.
The “LOCOLOCO” website is quite interesting, but many of the authors statements and conclusions about certain designs should be treated very cautiously. The AA-20 didn’t have “universal joints” in the rods, just ordinary knuckles which are plainly visible in the photo and outline drawing. Likewise, there has been a fair bit of material published in Europe in the years since the end of the Soviet era that states the AA-20 was reasonably successful, considering it was only ever intended as an experiment. The claim that "
I think that the alleged universal joints in the siderods were actually spherical bushings, so the rods could be angled slightly without stressing them. We’re only talking a degree or two, not like the trucks on a Shay.
Since the 4-12-2s were reasonably successful (third cylinder and all,) imagine hanging a really good steam generator between two of those engines - a 4-12-2+2-12-4 Garratt. Move over, Big Boy, and let a MAN do the job!
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - when not imagineering impossible steam)
If it’s made in HO, can it run on 18" radius curves? Ha Ha