|
01 |
August 2022 Immediate Release |
|
If the tender off the GN 2100 is like the one in this picture, if is likely even larger than the six-wheel-trucked tenders on the SP F-4 and F-5 classes.
https://www.steamlocomotive.com/whyte/2-10-2/USA/photos/gn2178-davis.jpg
https://www.steamlocomotive.com/whyte/2-10-2/USA/photos/sp3738-laws.jpg
Here is a picture of the 982 four-wheel-trucked tender at the Heber Valley Railroad in Utah.
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?10,3513918
If you scroll down there is a discussion on how the 982’s fuel oil tender ended up in Utah when 2-8-0 618 was being converted to fuel oil in 2014. Apparently it was the same size as the 618’s coal tender.
Is there any business case for a Santa Fe-type steam operation? I consider C&O 1309 as a one-off. A low drivered 2-10-2, not so much.
63.5-inch drivers on the SP F-1 Class. Probably good for 40-45 mph maximum.
They were delivered with tender capacity of 12,000 gallons water and 4,000 gallons fuel oil.
Information on tender capacity from www.steamlocomotive.com
Southern Pacific F-1 2-10-2 class 3601-3651(982) (Baldwin 1919) were delivered with tender capacities of 10,030 gallons water and 3,120 gallons fuel oil.
Southern Pacific F-3 through F6 2-10-2 classes were delivered with tender capacities of 12,000 gallons water and 4,000 gallons fuel oil.
Great Northern Q-1 2-10-2 class 2100-2129 (Baldwin 1923) were delivered with tender capacities of 17,000 gallons water and 5,800 gallons fuel oil.
It probably depends on just where they’re going to run it and how much trackage is available. Speeds in the 40 MPH range are tolerable for excursion riders as most want the ride to last anyway. The novelty of riding behind steam is the attraction, more so than the speed.
In the meantime, deep in the wilds of South Jersey SMS Rail Services’ restoration of Alco 0-6-0 #9 is approaching completion and passenger excursion operations are being seriously considered on a 14 mile section of railroad between Pilesgrove and Swedesboro. They think it’s more than do-able. Let’s see what happens.
Here is a nifty six-minute video showing QJ 2-10-2 6988 with its 59-inch drivers picking 'em up and laying 'em down pretty well across Iowa.
Of course, everything’s bigger in Texas, so perhap 982 with its 63 1/2-inch drivers will be scattering the longhorns someday as it rips across the grasslands of eastern Texas.
That was a FAST six minutes! And that QJ can really move!
I kinda wish they’d get rid of those ugly-a$$ smoke deflectors though, but what the hell, it’s not my engine or my place to tell them what to do with it.
That 0-6-0 should feel quite comfortable among those various Baldwin switchers.
It would! The original idea was to restore the 0-6-0 (The president of SMS remembered it from his days at the New Hope & Ivyland) and use it occasionally for switching and deliveries in the same way they use the Baldwins, kind of a “corporate toy” for lack of a better term and an attention getter. But apparantly with new trackage available they’ve gotten the idea of “Hey, you know what?”
And that’s a good thing!
'76, coincidentally Trains has a great article on the QJ 2-10-2 this month. Apparently the design of the QJ 2-10-2 had its genesis in the Baldwin USRA 2-10-2. American design from the 1910s is equally impressive in the 2020s.
Quite true. Also under-the-skin the Chinese made a number of efficiency improving modifications to the basic design as well.
[quote user=“Backshop”]
Is there any business case for a Santa Fe-type steam operation? I consider C&O 1309 as a one-off. A low drivered 2-10-2, not so much./quote]You’d be right, of course. I don’t think there’s really an operating model behind either the UP or the SP 2-10-2, though… at least I haven’t seen any indication of a ‘feasibility plan’ comparable to what was developed for T1 5550.
What OUGHT to be done with one of them is the ‘beauty treatment’ given to the T&P 2-10-4s (there is a ‘free’ Trains article discussing some of the details). This included a “proper” main driver capable of accommodating angled mass, and lighter-weight reciprocating parts. With proper lateral-motion devices at least on the leading and trailing driver axles, and a little Gladstone-like taper on those flanges and tires, you’d be a long way toward practical 40-to-45mph running speed, and a proper 3-axis-damped lead truck ought to be simple to arrange within ‘prorotypical appearance’ (or substituted for the ‘historic fabric’ when the engine was to be run…)
If there is a business case, it would involve securing enough cars and enough amenities to make trips of the appropriate trainlength and capacity possible. I don’t think there is a lasting ‘fandom’ for either class that would be a draw in its own right (at least for very long) but “big steam is big steam”… and more power to it!
[quote user=“Overmod”]
The 982 and her F1 sisters were timetable restricted to 55 MPH, and she is equipped with both lateral motion devices on the front set of drivers and cross balanced main drivers. She pulled passenger trains in regular service on occasion, and was assigned to pull the second section of the Argonaut, a passenger train running between Houston and San Antonio. She has the ability to pull wha
For the record, I’m a non-involved party with zero skin in this game. That said, one of my pet peeves, strictly for ascetic reasons, are steam locomotives with ridiculously disproportional tenders. I know from my forefathers there are reasons for what tender is used in what application and if I were in their boots I would apply those principals just as religiously as they did. Nevertheless, a large road locomotive with a tender the size of a bathtub looks blatantly ridiculous. The 982 with 2100’s Vandy tender will look stunning! Cannot wait to see what y’all come up with.
No F-1 2-10-2s on this video, but if this doesn’t whet your appetite for 982, nothing will.
Here is F-1 975 at the Illinois Railroad Museum.
https://www.steamlocomotive.com/whyte/2-10-2/USA/photos/sp975-priester2.jpg
https://www.steamlocomotive.com/whyte/2-10-2/USA/photos/sp975-priester1.jpg
https://www.steamlocomotive.com/whyte/2-10-2/USA/photos/sp975-priester.jpg
As an addendum to my earlier post, since I didn’t really clarify one of my “concerns”. I know that a 2-10-2 wouldn’t have any problem with the tonnage or the lower speeds of excursion service. I was more questioning how “interesting” it would be to be behind a 2-10-2 that isn’t really “working” versus a 2-8-0 that’s giving it its all?
Take a 15# set on equipment with solid wheels and you’ll have all the ‘working’ your heart desires.
Or use a trailing diesel chassis (or even just a car with powered trucks) with a small power source for dynamic-brake excitation of a set of grids and fans. You may recall that in England they used this approach for full steady-state dynamometric testing at constant resistance up to the most severe grades…
Just as a comparison, up on the Polar Plains of Minnesota, each year 261 lopes along with a 13-car excursion train plus diesel on the Twin Cities & Western and has no trouble selling out or practically selling out every trip. it is in steam and sounds and smells like a steam engine and even though the throttle may not be up to the roof of the cab, people love it just the same.
I love to hear stack talk just as much as anyone else reading this thread. Nevertheless, the vast majority of ticket holders just want to see the “choo-choo” regardless of performance.
That said, the trackage around Houston is rather crowded these days and about to get more so if one believes the testimony levied during the CP[KC] merger hearings. So where is this beauty to run?