Mikado pulling power

Yes, Wes Barris’ website is where most of the information comes from. What you don’t realize is that except for the first three O-7s all Mikados after the O-3s, were rebuilt from something else. In other words they aren’t completely new locomotives. All of the big O-8 Mikados were O-7 Mikados first. So for a O-8 Mikado to be built, a O-7 Mikado was stripped down and wheels and frame discarded. The cylinders, cabs, and boiler were reused with modifications. A new frame, and firebox, along with new wheels were fitted. Nicholson Thermic Syphons were fitted along with higher capacity feedwater heaters and larger injectors, etc. Total ownership of Mikados peaked with the completion of the O-7s. To be a little clearer the GN took 45 Class L1 2-6-6-2 Mallet Articulateds were sliced and diced and then put the pieces back together as 45 Class O-5 Mikados. The 22 L2 Mallet Articulateds were rebuilt into 22 Class O-6 Mikados, and 22 of the 25 O-7 Mikados were rebuilt from Class M2 Simple Articulateds of 2-6-8-0 wheel arrangment.

OK Beaulieu,

What you have explained there is good because it could be matched up with the 92 from their own shops. Now I understand why the buiding in their own works. That still leaves another 200, 10 from ALCO and 190 from Baldwin.

The way I understand you is that GN built the big fellas themselves, reusing components from earlier engines. The other 200 from Baldwin and ALCO I am assuming were pretty standard sort of mikes.

Right, the other 200 Mikes were all built by 1920, the 10 Alcos were the 9 USRA Heavies, plus the oddball. As you can tell the GN wasn’t a good Alco customer. In many ways the GN was like the Pennsy, they liked Baldwin and Belpaire. That may be why the USRA Mikes weren’t popular.

John Beaulieu

Most of the Mikes including the USRA had small drivers (63") and could start and handle larger trains than they were normally assigned after the Super Power design was introduced. This was due to their slower speed capability and the NKP Berkshires had the grate area in the firebox along with feed water heaters to keep a train moving much faster than the old USRA mikes could go.

We paced a NKP 600 series Mike with a 700 leading from Neoga north towards Charleston Illinois back in 54 and they were running about fifty, which is way short of the 700’s normal speed without the Mike attached. The 600 series Mikes were used on train 49 west bound and many times it was in the sevety to eighty car count. My brother and I used to count the cars on evey train for Dad.

Sorry for being so late, I just didn’t visit my account a couple of weeks. Therefore thankfully some other users explained important factors. My infocomes from the Frisco Steam book written by Donald Heimburger (It now is about 15 miles away and I don’t know its exact title). He writes very accurate many different tonnage ratings for several Frisco steamers, and exactly the portions of the lines. And keep in mind that it was common practice on many US roads to push a little amount backwards before starting the train.
Moreover the nominal starting tractive effort (N. S. T. E.) is based on (accurate) calculations, but a good hogger could get more out of the engines. Lets look to the N&W class A 2-6-6-4. This one has a N. S. T. E. of about 106000 or 107000 pounds (also here I don’t know exactly). But in Ed King’s book about that (along with the Y-6b) best articulated I found a note that one time there have been measured as much as nearly 120000 pounds. And keep in mind that these engines with only about 30000 pounds more T. E. and a boiler perhaps 50% larger than the largest Mikes were regularly used to haul 15000ton coal trains unassisted! And not downhill with wind in back. And more than one time they prooved that they could handle even more.

By the way, I also have two brass models of the GN O-8 because that engine in my eyes is one of the most imposing steamers ever built!

The latest issue of “Remember the Rock” magazine has an article on the RI’s heavy mikados. In it there is a mention of 6500 tons permitted on water-level grades.

The trouble about midwestern railroads being flat is that it is simply not true. There are places where there is level or near level trackage, but most places also have hills. Some are fairly big. They may not be mountains, but they can stall a train just the same.

The location listed for the 6500 tons is only half of a subdivision. The remaining portion had hills that cut the tonnage rating in about half.

Jeff

Hi VC,

Don’t be offended that I doubted the loads. I can see that these locos could pull a lot more than I thought. However, I am still a bit sceptical about 15,000 tons. What wagons would that be in? If 50 tonners, then we are looking at 300 cars. Thats one long train.[:O]

I think the original idea was to get an idea of what would be a prototypical load. Seems to me that about 80 wagons is a pretty respectable load for most Mikes. Your big O-8 a bit more OK. However, who has a layout that can handle trains of 80 wagons? You are going to need refuge sidings about 30 feet or more long.

You have convinced me that these engines could pull a fair load. However, the general rule could be found in railroad operating instructions of what was allowed behind certain engines on certain sections. That is the real operation, rather than what might be moved as a test of power or demonstration. If the road stated those engines should be loaded to 15,000 ton on a regular basis I would be surprised.

Throughout the ’50s, the N&W continued to increase the productivity of its engines. In 1951, for example, studies showed that adding an auxiliary water tender could eliminate the need for some water stops and increase gross ton-miles per train hour (GTM) 31 percent on the 112-mile Kenova District between Williamson and Portsmouth, Ohio. So the railroad rebuilt many older 16,000 gallon tenders for this purpose and increased the As’ tonnage ratings from 13,000 to 14,500 there, and by a comparable amount everywhere else across the system (virtually all photos taken after 1951 show them trailing this auxiliary tender).

quoted from… http://www.fineartmodels.com/pages/product.asp?content_area=3&sub_area=10&product_area=143

BTW, trains of 225 50-70 ton hoppers from Portsmouth to Columbus Ohio (relatively flat, but still uphill) were the standard. As you can see, the elimination of a water stop helped the A’s because they didn’t run out of water, and have to stop for more, and restart a heavy train on a grade. So you can see the main determining factor was terrain, not weight of the train.

One more interesting note… there is discussion of O Winston Link recording the Class A 1218 pulling a train up Blue Ridge in the early 50’s and the engine stalling. By Link’s recorded info on the train, and the known grade, and the recording of the engine, it is suggested that the 1218 was producing approximately 7000 hp… considerably higher than “known/accepted” values.