Back when I was playing with Hon3 the question came up of what the USRA would have done if they decided to have a standard design for narrow gauge (3’). The game isn’t whether they would or would not produce a design. They didn’t, and with good reason, but were one key resource away from plausibility with the miles of narrow gauge still in use in 1917. So if given the task, what would they have done?
Clean sheet designs but in the USRA “style”?
Use whatever modules they could from the existing designs? Things like steam chests, valve gear, firebox. I could see the 0-6-0 boiler as a starting point for an outside frame 2-8-2, as a modeler I might just change the length of the smokebox as needed. Would the 0-8-0 boiler be too heavy for a Mike? Would they want an articulated such as a 2-6-6-2? A 2-10-2 if the lateral motion was enough?
Anoint a few models from a major builders catalog.
Something I’m not smart enough to think of?
Maybe no one cares at this date, but it would be fun to see what solutions people would come up with.
Indeed an interesting game, and while we think of the Colorado 3 footers as having similar needs, and roughly similar conditions and standards, and thus benefitting potentially from USRA standardized designs, there were also the various 3 foot lines of the Milwaukee Road, Chicago& North Western, the Hawaii lines, and others that I cannot recall off hand, not to mention the EBT and perhaps the Pennsylvania Railroad’s 3 foot lines although those were standard gauged at some point, perhaps prior to the war? Certainly the CNW’s 3 foot lines could not have hosted even some of the modest sized Rio Grande narrow gauge steam.
I have never read that the USRA was as ruthless about shutting down duplicative or failing 3 foot lines as they were standard gauge railroads and perhaps they just were not strategic enough. But part of the game could also be to envision a rationalization of the 3 foot systems.
It is worth noting that the USRA didn’t just design locomotives, it also grabbed stuff from loco builders, such as the Russian decapods and some French consolidations, and sent them to US railroads. So in addition to your speculation about some use of the USRA switcher boilers as standards, I wonder if the loco builders had foreign narrow gauge steam on their factory floors or in their catalogs that would have been decided on as a standard or series of standards? I could envision some narow gauge equivalent of the USRA’s “heavy” and “light” distinctions.
I don’t know the dimensions offhand, but I would think that the limiting factor on using boiler and firebox designs would be boiler diameter. I think that a USRA 0-6-0 or 0-8-0 heavy boiler would be much to wide for a 3 foot gauge locomotive. Remember that there have to be running boards along the sides too!
I would think that USRA would have stuck with the same wheel arrangements (0-6-0, 0-8-0, 4-6-2, 2-8-2, 4-8-2, 2-10-2, 2-6-6-2, and 2-8-8-2).
The main thing that would label these fictional locomotives as USRA would be the details and features. (From "A Modeler’s Guide to USRA Locomotives, January 2011 Model Railroader.)
overhung bell at top front of smokebox
headlight just below center line of smokebox
domed smokebox door (see photos for proportions)
spoked boiler-tube pilot, except switchers which had foot-boards
short, slightly flared smokestack
neat, simple sandbox and steam dome
single cross-compound air compressor on left side of boiler
steps up to running boards in front of cylinders (except switchers and initial light Mikado)
I did not check boiler diameter for them but, since the K37 class used std gauge 2-8-0 boilers, the USRA 0-6-0 boiler seemed small enough. The grate area is close and the models I have seen also give that feeling.
I never thought the entire range of wheel arrangements would be used, the 4-6-2 seemed unlikely for one. Part of the game is which wheel arrangements would be needed. It would be nice to see a 4-8-2 some time.
Any opinion on inside vs. outside frame? EBT and D&RGW are examples of each.
I feel this would be the most likely option. I really can’t see a 2-6-6-2 or anything larger, due to weight and curves. A 2-4-4-2 maybe…Because of the curves, I suspect a 2-10-2 would not have been designed either…
When did the narrow gauge steam built for WWII come out? Was there any built for WWI? Because standard war designs in the 1940s were shipped to the WP&Y…
I don’t think so. This is narrow gauge. Think light rail, steep grades, stub switches, and 24 degree curves. I don’t think a ten coupled would be practical and maybe just silly. I’m not certain the large fire boxes needed to steam the 2-8-8-2 would even be mathematically possible considering the more narrow frames. A 2-6-6-2 MIGHT work buy why try an experiment in war time. We need stuff we know works and works well. Similarly in a war emergency I see no need for the higher speed 4-x-x arrangment. Finally where is anyplace narrow gauge that would require a dedicated 0-8-0 switcher? D&RG didn’t even have any of those in standard gauge. Let the narrow gauge road locos do their own switching.
Were I on the USRA board I would have taken the successful Baldwin 125 design (D&RGW K-26) {or EBT #16 - nice but not at the time proven} and Baldwin 70 (D&RGW C-19) and said there you go. Actually I would have allowed them to make a few upgrades for the last 10 years of technology 1903 to 1913, and told them to upsize the drivers on the 125 by a few inches for the sake of work on dual gauge track. This would have resulted in almost a 140 and almost 93 class locomotives.
Once again I would disagree. Our purpose at USRA is to make things efficient, reliable, and quick to the manufacture floor. In the narrow gauge world we do not have more than 7 makers trying out all sorts of “new” improvements on tens (maybe hundreds) of different designs. In the narrow gauge world there is no need to make a list that limits the details and features as we already have a working set. They are on file at
Nice little loco - and not too radically different from USRA design. Of course, with those roller skate wheel drivers it couldn’t have been anyone’s idea of a speed demon.
Going back to the original premise, the USRA was intended to move WWI wartime traffic faster and more efficiently. To that end, providing stndard gauge main lines with simple, standardized locomotives with commonality of spare parts made sense. Would giving the same to narrow gauge feeders, none of which carried massive amounts of war-essential commodities, have made economic or business sense? Consider, too, that there was a huge difference in the characteristics of the various narrow gauge lines. I doubt that they would have benefited from standardization applied as a stone tablet from Zion.
I rather suspect that, had the USRA extended its attention to the slim gauge lines, it would have standard-gauged the more essential ones and abandoned the rest. Maybe we should give thanks that the Federales kept their cotton-pickin’ hands off the sub-standard gauge carriers.
So, what kind of single, standard locomotive could have handled the heavy mineral traffic of the East Broad Top, the agricultural and mineral loads of the Grande, the Uintah’s 68 degree curves and 8% grades, the ‘tied in knots’ route of the West Side (71 miles of track to cover 18 miles as the buzzard flies) and all the others I haven’t mentioned. Sort of like trying to design a single-size uniform for every pre-teen girl in Nevada, based on one woman’s ‘working in the mine’ outfit. Say What???
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with standardized JNR locos and definitely un-standardized locos where the JNR doesn’t run)
Gidday, coming from New Zealand where narrow gauge (3’6") is the norm, I would think that by WWl there would have been more than enough experience at the likes of Baldwin that your third option would have been a “goer” with of course 'standardized fittings.
A link to narrow gauge locomotives built by Baldwin for the NZGR.
As for wheel arrangements, well hminky 's link shows what was possible, and that list doesn’t appear to even list Garratts, though they were still in the developmental stage pre WWl . I do wonder if a USRA list would have included tank engines?
Schuylkill and Susquehanna “But I ain’t never seen no phantom narrow gauge 4-8-2”.
I love narrow gauge locomotive’s uniqueness as they are now. My vote would be for not having USRA design them as I like them as they are. I realize this is a fantasy topic, so my fantasy is that there is no fantasy!
I think that IF the USRA designed narrow gauge locomotives, they would use the latest technology of the times, so I think a lot of the parts such as headlights would be the same as standard gauge. Some perhaps scaled down
For wheel arrangements I think there would be: Shay (light and heavy), 2-6-0, 2-6-2, 4-6-0, 2-8-2, and 2-6-6-2. The Shays for steep grades, the 2-6-0 for lightly built lines, the 4-6-0 for passengers, the rest for freight on the more robust lines. At least one of these should run on any of the 3 ft gauges.
And if you want some really large 3’6" gauge locomotives, try South Africa… The 15F class 4-8-2’s were rated at just over 42,000 lbs TE at 75% boiler pressure. A number of SAR 4-8-2’
I think TZ calls it just about right (he meant a K-27, not a K-26, though.) Fact is, the USRA rather ignored the narrowgauge lines in comparison to its focus on moving war material on the standard gauge. That’s why you didn’t see any locos along the line of this topic in the history books. If there were circumstances requiring such locos, yep, most likely a lot like the K-27 class as the most modern and successful design of the time – except for the compound feature, which was deleted upon rebuilding. During a war, they would have just built them simple, as they issues were already evident by then.
There was little call for handling more traffic on the NG. If there was, it would’ve been more of the same, like a K-27, to add capacity. Bigger locos by themselves just don’t help much. You need the track, bridges, turntables, and other infrastructure upgraded as well to support any significant increase – all of which tend to have longer lead times to put in place, not something you do when fighting a war unless it turns into a long one.
Another place to look would be Baldwin and other export production. By the time of WWI, American narrowgauge lines had been in retreat for
The Unitah Railway received their first articulated in 1926, after the USRA wound down. At the time, they were using shays to conquer the pass.
Because this is a war emergency, I doubt that any new designs would have been built. Export models are another interesting thought, and in my mind would have been the way to go.
To answer the question - PRR G5s, built in 1923. If the USRA had ever recognized the need for commuter service they would have recognized the value of a big boilered, 68 inch drivered 4-6-0.
Actually, passenger power was NOT a USRA priority. The first USRA loco was a light 2-8-2, B&O 4500, delivered on 4 July 1918. None of the 4-X-2s were delivered until 1919, by which time the Armistice was history.
The 4-6-0 was not obsolete for certain tasks in 1918. Many were built for the PRR up to 1926 (standard gauge, G-5, some for LIRR) and the British Black 5 was built until some years after WWII!
Going with the simple is better idea I believe it would have been realistic that the WPB would have chosen something like the EBT 2-8-2’s . The #12 was delivered in 1911 although it was a bit smaller than the following locos. The slightly larger #12 and #14 were delivered in 1912 and 1914. They were IMO simpler than the D&RGW K locos and more in line with the USRA ideas…Interesting discussion…Mike
