For my HO freelance shortline, the Tate’s Falls, & New Luxembourg, I HAVE to have a steam roster, and no diesel. I am a crazy steam fanatic, and I greatly prefer the steam era, thank you very much. anyway, for my shortline, I am thinking about what steamers I should have, maybe the bachmann 4-6-0, or 4-4-0, or maybe I should just go with 0-4-0 saddle tankers. Mind you that the shortline is supposed to be 100 curvy miles. Another option is to use second hand suburban tankers, bought cheap from Boston and Maine, or some thing like that, or maybe some kitbashed forney’s. So tell me what would be most plausible.
100 miles seems like a pretty long short line. You’ll need some significant freight engines: the light versions of 2-8-0’s and 2-8-2’s might work. No plastic ones come to mind at the moment. The Bachmann 2-10-0 also might be just the thing–it’s pretty little.
The 0-4-0T seems kinda lightweight. Bachmann has their 0-6-0T, though it always looked kinda tail-heavy to me.
A really neat little 0-6-0 was the (brass) CSt.PM&O engine imported by PFM a million years ago. You’re not gonna need a lot of locos–you might like that one.
Ed
It depends very much on era, region, grades, train length, desired speeds, type of traffic, and finances, as well as distance.
Since my short line is set in the coastal mountains of Oregon in 1900, I’m looking at late 19th Century railroading in the West. Older 4-4-0s may suffice for passenger service in rural areas, but 2-8-0s tended to be the standard by 1890 in the West for freight in the mountains. Anything smaller was just too light, and couldn’t haul enough of a train.
That said, many a short line having financial problems would take what they could get cheaply for steam locomotives. So less than a perfect match for conditions would be quite common on struggling lines.
It’s been enjoyable research for me - looking at a variety of short (and not so short) lines in Oregon and Northern California in the late 19th Century, see what they used for power and why, and applying it to my short line to set up a plausible roster. I would do the same for your region and era.
Of course, most of my ideal roster is not available off the shelf. So I have a few models that are too modern, or are otherwise wrong, until I can find or bash something more suitable.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Well, you don’t specify your railroad’s main purpose, nor whether it is mostly, or even entirely, for freight moves, or handles mixed service. This immediately poses some difficulties in answering your question.
While, indeed, the 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 might fit the needs of a financially strapped shortline, except for very early in the last century neither of these was regarded as typical freight locomotives. The same is even truer of the classic suburban tank engines. All three types were generally regarded as fairly light duty passenger locomotives by the post WWI era. This would be particularly true of a suburban, whose range was limited by its small fuel bunker, most being employed for local commuter passenger service. A 0-4-0T (saddle tanker) would, of course, be even more limited in its service range. Locomotives of this class rarely ventured very far from yards, industrial complexes, or made short hauls from a plant/mine to a yard.
If you are intending mixed service on your shortline, with the era set between the wars, a vintage second hand 4-4-0 could handle limited passenger service and a couple of similar period 2-8-0’s for use moving freight would tend to be my choices.
CNJ831
I guess it depends on the company. Here on Vancouver Island, the Esquimalt & Nanaimo used 4-6-0’s as freight engines, and as passenger engines. 2-8-0’s were used in the Cowichan Valley west of Duncan…one of them is restored and working as 2141 on the Kamloops Heritage Railway’s power in the central interior on the mainland.
Sometimes a small system had no way to turn engines. If so, and they wanted to keep a tight schedule, they would have to return to the servicing or staging light, or pushing in reverse, or towing in reverse. Engines needing to work their way around curves at speed would want a trailing truck, except it would have been the leading truck in reverse. So, a 2-6-2 or a small 4-6-4 might be useful. Also, as John suggests, a Mike 2-8-2. But how about a light Pacific 4-6-2? Even tank engines could be used as long as speed wasn’t high on the list of requirements. A 2-8-2T is a hefty and powerful engine, good for running forward and in reverse at its maximum rated speed. It just won’t be 50 mph, that’s all.
Crandell
“Short line,” and, “Light traffic line,” are NOT synonyms. There were shortlines that moved mountains of ore behind Mallet articulateds. (Example? Utah’s Bingham and Garfield, which had to buy N&W Y3s to supplement their own 0-8-8-0s)
I would guess that the vast majority of short, light traffic lines ran 2-8-0s for their standard freight locomotives. Tank locos are short range locos, typically limited to 25 miles or so on a single fuel load and about half that between water stops. For a 100 mile run in an area with significant grades, that 2-8-0 might need a six-axle tender.
If your short line ran Class I hand-me-downs, they would most likely have been 2-8-0s and/or light 2-8-2s. Modern ‘superpower’ usually went straight from service to scrap.
My freelanced short line, faced with a God-awful ruling grade, is powering coal units with bigger locomotives than ever ran in 1:1 scale Japan. It also runs a motley collection of tank locos. That’s what the management can afford, and what is needed to move the rather meager (except for those coal units) tonnage.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
The Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad was a shortline railroad that was 77 miles long running in a not very straight line from Baltimore to York. The last steam locomotives were scrapped in 1956. They used 4-4-0’s (last one scrapped in 1952), 4-6-0’s, 2-8-0’s, and 0-6-0’s. The 0-6-0’s had slope back tenders. All of these were built before WWI except for one 2-8-0. They ran separate passenger service through August 1954 when the mail contract ended. Diesels were introduced in the late 40’s but the steam locomotives were still used. 2 gas electrics were bought in the 20’s, but steam was used on passenger service into the 50’s.
The line was the merger of two former lines that had been built as narrow gauge and widen to standard gauge. The line had numerous trestles and sharp curves, the sharpest of which was 20 degrees. On occasion trains were double headed, but the heavier 2-8-0’s had several cars between them so that only one was on a trestle at a time.
I highly recommend the book The Ma & Pa by George Hilton. Even if you don’t want to model the Ma & Pa it’s a very readable book on a beloved short line.
Enjoy
Paul
I use Bachmann’s 4-4-0, 4-6-0 and 2-8-0. The MDC/Roundouse/Athearn/Horizon 2-6-0, 2-8-0,4-4-0 is another option. I like the Bachmann’s better.
Over the years,The Raritan River Rail Road in New Jersey used 4-4-0s, 4-6-0s, 2-8-0s, 2-8-2s, one 4-6-2, and 0-6-0s. During the first world war they carried 9000 passengers a day on 28 scheduled passenger trains each way. The road was a little over 12 miles long.
I think that it would depend more on type of traffic as well…
I’m thinking Bachmann’s 4-4-0, 4-6-0 and 2-8-0 would do the trick there…in some books I have from Ian Wilson, such as Steam Over Palmerston, http://www.canadianbranchline.com/palmerston.htm, he shows many branchlines that operated north of Stratford with 2-6-0’s as well.
You might want to do a little research on just what the area you are trying to model actually had for grades as well…
Most short lines favored low drivered 2-8-0s and 2-8-2s for freight and 4-6-0s for passengers.Some of the coal hauling short lines had small 2-6-6-2 and 2-8-8-2s very similar to some logging articulates.Yard engines would vary to include small 2-8-0s.
There is a lot more to short lines then most believe and takes studying to understand how these “little” railroads came into being…Many was built to have a connection to a bigger railroad for local industry and some of those roads never earned a profit.
So…
A 100 mile short line would have been quite a railroad and the roster would reflect that where a 20-30 mile short line may have had a single 2-8-0 or perhaps a 4-6-0.
OK, I seem to have forgotten some of the details in the begging. For one, the railway is mostly a logging railway, but moves minerals and other stuff, but no coal, as it is in an area where there is no coal mines, and I am not a fan of coal railroading. The steam engines are woodburners, unless I use the suburban tanks. The grades will be at the highest 7%, and the railway will fallow a river a lot, but also crosses a large swamp. Also remember, that the railway is set in Canada, where, unlike the USA, the 2-8-0 was the most popular engine ever, in Canada, the 4-6-0, was the most common, and you’ll find more shorelines with Ten-Wheelers, than Consolidations.
With those grades and being mostly logging, Shays, Climaxes, and Heislers sound like what you should use.
Enjoy
Paul
Thanks, but the railway is longer than average shortlines, so I want to use rod engines, as the towns are far spaces, and I don’t want to have 30 scale HO hours for the trains to go from the logging camp to the largest modeled towns of Tate’s Falls, and New Luxembourg, where the interchanges are.
Heres your best choice.
http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/list/caspar5/caspar5meh.jpg
And the closest match.
Mind you every body, that the railway has tight curves, and is not at all in a straight path. In fact the distance between freelance Tate’s Falls and also fake New Luxembourg, it is more like 60 miles, as the railway has an S-like curve to the line, if seen on a map, The railway did this to hit two other large freelance towns, Pumfrey, and John’s Mills. So it’s not as long as you think.
This is what’s left of the tank engine I suggested earlier. Vancouver Island, near Telegraph Cove.
One like it runs the 20 miles between the town of Port Alberni and the McLean steam sawmil, except that one is a 2-8-2T.
The sight glass on the backhead has an embossed metal plaque that shows the high and low water levels permitted on grades as steep as 9%.
Okay, now I have another question. I know shortlines were tight on money, and I found an engine to fit my tank engine craving. As many kids these day are, they are now brought up with Thomas the Tank Engine, and I grew up with tons of tank engines on TV, so, naturally, I want to have tank engines. Anyway, I found this picture, and a tiny bit of info on these odd ball 0-6-4’s used by Canadian Pacific. Knowing that shortlines were tight on money I thought what if my shortline bought 5 or 6 of these engines, before the torches could get at em. Would you say that this is realistic, or should I scrap that hope. AND ALSO, MY SHORTLINE IS NOT IN A LARGE NEED FOR SPEED, JUST ENOUGH STRENGTH TO GET THE JOB DONE. PIC FROM http://www.railways.incanada.net/Articles/Article2004_6.html 
OH BOY. I DID SOME MORE RESEARCH AND TURNS OUT THERE WERE ONLY TWO OF THESE ENGINE. On the bright side, I could shorten my line so that it only used 2 or 3 engines.Here are two more photos of the engines.
As has been stated earlier, not all short lines were created equal - or anywhere close to it. Short lines that lasted a while had to be quite prosperous at least some of the time.
It doesn’t matter whether I think your scenario is realistic or not. I don’t know the history of railroading in your region very well, so I really couldn’t give a good guess. What matters is if you think your story and shortline history is plausible. Or does it gnaw at you because you know it’s not quite right? Or do you even care if your story is plausible? There are plenty of model railroaders in all 3 camps. If plausibility really concerns you, you will do the research. If not, why bother?
Fred W
Your screen name/info doesn’t include any idea of regional, or even country, of residence for you. Depending whether you are in the U.S., or Canada, and where your proposed railroad is, the situation with regard to your potential use of suburban-type locomotives could be rather different. Certainly in the States the era of true suburban locomotive use was already in serious decline by 1900. Very few suburbans existed as mainline motive power post WWI, even in commuter service. The primary examples I’m familiar were the larger commuter service locomotives on the Reading, CNJ, B&A and the few diminutive ones owned by the NYC. In no instance were there more than a handful on even these roads post WWI. Most of them had been run into the ground by WWII and were scrapped, not sold off.
The logging roads of the West and likewise industrial usage, saw actual tank engine (not correctly regarded as “suburbans”) in limited service, but I don’t believe that many of them would be chosen for common carrier shortline use by second owners. They simply would have had neither the fuel capacity, nor hauling power, sufficient for mainline usage. The photos you posted seem all to be of Canadian tank engines, so perhaps they were more commonly employed in the Great White North (although none appear very large).
So again, but perhaps to a degree dependent on where you are modeling, suburbans and tank engines would be rather unlikely candidates for mainline freight service on a shortline and not suitable for more than limited distance runs in passenger service. Incidentally, I’m not aware of any HO models available today that even vaguely resemble the engines in your prototype photos. The only hope I see might be a major kitbash of some standard 0-6-0 switcher.
CNJ831