I have sort of mastered the Big Boy (after it comes back from BLI to fix the lights) and the PCM Y6b kicks butt. It got off to a flakey start with the cannon plug not staying in the engine and some odd crude on the tender wheels. But two calls to Bob at BLI she is draging 40 coal cars like there is nothing behinde her. Flicker fire in the fire box was a sweet touch I will add.
So what is next in the way of Articulated steam engines?
I know about the Challenger, but besides it what else is out there? I read something about a Yellow Stone, what does it look like?
Is a Y-3 all most the same engine as my Y6b?
Pic and Links, it will be a while before I buy anything with my Daughter getting married but I need to know what to look for.
Try a Rivarossi H-8, Ken. It is the C&O 2-6-6-6. A monster. Otherwise, the Mantua tankers availably cheaply from trainworld.com. Not DCC, but they can be made so, and they are apparently nice engines.
Otherwise, big bucks in brass. Try Uncle Dave’s Brass and see what he has in the way of big brutes. Also, don’t overlook the Beyer-Garratts. Mark Newton has a handle on someone who makes them…I recall something like eurekamodels…something like that. Also a bit pricey.
The Leader Class an articulated? Hmm? That’s something of a moot point. Personally I wouldn’t call it an artic. On the other hand i wouldn’t call it a Flexible Wheeelbase either…
The next is a Klose Mechanism loco which, like the Hagens below it was a flexible not an artic.
Then you have three proper artics…
The last one is a real weirdity… if you look carefully you can see that the leading truck has two complete sets of cylinders one above the other. This is because this design had a seperate rack engine combined into the leading truck. IIRC these were Abt rack engines. IIRC there were never any artic or flexible rack engines… they could probably not have synchronised the two sets of driven gears to the rack.
Why not? It’s as much an articulated loco as a Garratt, Meyer, K-M or Fairlie.
I might concede the Klose, but not the Hagens - it’s articulated. The rear four drivers are in a separate swivelling frame.
Yes Dave, I’m aware of this. Two of these engines survive, and I’ve crawled all over and under both.
Sorry, there were. These K-Ms and the contemporary CTR Esslingens were articulated rack engines. In addition to the rack engine superimposed on the front adhesion engine unit, the rear engine unit is powered on the rack pinions only. “Synchronising” the two sets of rack pinions on one engine was no different to engaging the rack with two engines double heading. I take it you’ve never had any footplate time on a rack and adhesion engine?
Your definition doesn’t take into account designs in which the coupled wheels are mounted in subframes or bogies to allow for a flexible wheelbase, which is why it’s not one favoured by
Articulated (1) - a blanket definition covering all of the more specific definitions below:
Articulated (2) - any locomotive with a frame arrangement that allows all its engines (cylinders with associated driven wheels) to assume an angle to the frame carrying the boiler. Meyer-Kitsons and Fairlies (single as well as double) were articulated. (The Mason Bogie of Colorado narrow gauge fame was a single Fairlie in basic design.) The most widely used fully articulated loco was the Beyer-Garratt.
Semi-articulated - any locomotive with a frame common to its boiler and one engine, with one or two subframes (fitted with engines) that can assume an angle to the main frame. This is what 99.44% of US built “articulated” locomotives were, although the Mallet pattern was not the only semi-articulated. (Mark, do you happen to know how a DuBosquet was hinged?)
Flexible - any locomotive with an engine fixed to the frame carrying the boiler which has drivers (powered through geared or electric links) in subframes that can swivel in relation to the main frame. Shays, Heislers and Climaxes were reciprocating steam examples. Sticking to steam, but going with electric traction, the Heilmann, N&W’s Jawn Henry and the C&O turbo-electrics also fit this definition.
I guess the WWI German trench engines that looked like 2-6-2s and ran like 0-10-0’s could be called “semi-flexible,” since the end axles were geared to the main engine and could swivel… I rather believe this isn’t the kind of articulated CudaKen had in mind (and not just because it was 600mm gauge!)
The Y3 was the USRA heavy articulated - the 2-6-6-2 was the light one - and N&W got almost fifty percent of the initial production; surprisingly the Y3 was derived directly from N&Ws own Y2a. Over the course of the next two decades N&W refined the Y3 design culminating in the Y6 design of 1936 and the ultimate of compound articulation, the Y6b of 1948.
[bow][tup] Try the Mantua HO 2-6-6-2 W/tender this is a fine loco Mine is detaled a little and pulls real strong,I also have an rivrossi(spelling)Y-6B it is a good runner also.but could use more detail.[^]
Who cares whether or not the prototype would have been successful - the model would be the biggest baddest ever. Imagine the cars it could pull if it were built like a Bowser.
As an articulated man myself, I can at least put my two cents in…
The Rivarossi H-8 is sexy. It is by far my favorite. It runs sweet, and in my opinion, I think it has brass quality detail. It is the most detailed plastic engine I have ever seen.
The Proto Y-3 is nice. Also runs great, and detail is awesome, just hate that stupid wire bell cord, which is almost impossible to get back into the hole. I took mine off.
I also like the Rivarossi line that came out in the late nineties, which, while not as detailed, runs good and still looks pretty good. I have the Big Boy, 2 Challengers, a Cab forward, and a Y-6b, all of them have held up good and I still enjoy running them.
BLI-PCM - I have the Paragon A class, and a newly aquired Y6-b, both look awesome, sound great. My only problem is that the PCM Y looks so good, it makes my old Rivarossi look a little dated.
Finally, an engine that doesn’t seem to get a lot of press, but is one of my favorites, is the Bachmann 2-6-6-2. I can’t for the life of me figure why they stopped making it. This is a beautiful engine, it runs smoothly, is detailed on the level of the protos and is close to being as nice as the Rivarossi H-8. If you can find one of these little gems on e-bay or a train show, snatch one up, you won’t be dissappointed.
My frazzled brain recalled the Leader as a steam electric… OOPS! Were they inside cylinders? That would make it an artic the same as a Fairlie by my definition… which I think does make a suitable distinction between artic and flexible which puts the Hagens into the flexible type… only one set of cylinders and the connection made to the rear powered truck by a lever system… I actually worked out what the levers and pivot points were for this to make a model… but shifted to driving myself nuts with LandRovers instead.
I did once meet someone who had fired a Leader… his comments were definitely not repeatable here. The real problem was that they were designed to be oil fired with the fireman riding in the leading cab not stuck into an added in sweat box shand shovelling coal in the middle with no air supply. The thing would nearly kill firemen.
Chuck does a better job of distinguishing between artics and flexibles.
The German army beasts were “Lutomoller’s system” IIRC. There were both 10 and 6 wheeled variants of the Lutomollers. The outer axles were driven via gear mechanisms which also made a radial frame between the main frames. IIRC they worked quite well in Namibia/German South West Africa.
A system which was outwardly similar was developed at Duffield bank in Derbyshire … by I can’t recall who by. That “outwardly” is a bit dubious on reflection… these engines had a sort of radial syatem on the outer axles but managed to have coupling rods outside the frames… weird.
No I don’t have any experience on any steam footplates… dirty, mucky things! (Actually I did ride a Black 5 on the Central Wales Line when I was a kid). I certainly don’t crawl around them… YEUK!
I clearly got which way round the Rack/Adhesion locos were arranged wrong… Did they have seperate reg
Excelsiorss, there’s good news! Micromark is accepting orders for Bachmann Spectrum sound- equipped 2-6-6-2’s, with anticipated deliveries starting this November. That would explain why their fantastic clearance sale of soundless 2-6-6-2’s several months ago. I love my Grizzly Northern 2-6-6-2 Monashee, but oh how I now lust for a sound-equipped one! [:)]
I would also recommend the Bachmann Spectrum 2-6-6-2. These engines are great runners, good slow speed running.
Another articulate to consider is the new Mantua 2-6-6-2, it is very close to the Great Northern L series. As I would like to model Canadian Steam I could justify these running in the East Kootenay’s on the GN trackage along with CP Steam as well.
With a bit of work you have one of the early mallets. Later in life these engines were converted into the O-5 and O-6 series Mikado’s
Of the available non-brass articulateds available, might I suggest the Rivarossi H-8 2-6-6-6, one Heckuva handsome loco, smooth runner, INCREDIBLE puller, and just a real sweetheart of a loco. And though it has a 14-wheel tender, it’s NOT a Centipede, so you shouldn’t have tracking problems on your layout (the tender has a 6-wheel and an 8-wheel swiveling truck). Quite a lovely locomotive. I’ve got the older version from some years back, and it’s just a jewel.
Also, check Micromark, they are offering the Bachmann Spectrum 2-6-6-2–a smaller articulated, but a very smooth-running one, and a VERY decent puller.
You asked about a Yellowstone: It was developed from the 2-8-8-2 only adding a 4-wheel trailing truck to accomodate a more ‘super-powered’ elongated firebox. Not a lot of railroads had them, but they were extremely powerful locomotives. Probably the most famous are those of the Missabe Road, whose tractive power (148,000 lbs) was rated ABOVE that of the fa
Here’s a shot of a 2-10-2 CofG USRA Santa Fe (top), a 2-8-8-2 N&W USRA Y3 (center) and a 2-8-8-4 Missabe Yellowstone (bottom). These are all N Scale models. The Yellowstone is the reason I have upgraded to 20 and 22 inch radius curves on my layout as it has a fixed rear driver set that prevents reliable operation on 15 and 13.5 inch radius. The Yellowstone pulls 60 plus 40 foot cars up a 2% grade with no problems if the curves are not too tight. If you have the money and can find one in your scale, I say go for it!!
Your Y3 is a predecessor to the Y6b, after the USRA was disolved, N&W kept on upgrading the 2-8-8-2 to make it one of the most efficient drag freight locomotives ever built. This was the Y6b, while no one ever compared the tonnage moved by any of the later US articulated locomotives, th N&W locomotives were regarded as more efficient in terms of coal and water used per ton/mile. Being designed to haul heavy loads in the mountains of the Eastern US at 25 mph, the western companies were not satisfied with the performance of the 2-8-8-2, so they sold or scrapped their allotments as soon as WWI and the USRA ended.
