After reading a few history books one thing that quickly became a pattern with railroads is that when a main line locomative became out dated or to small eventully a few would end up in the yard switching cars and building trains. But one thing a few of teh RR would do is convert a steam enging like a 2-8-0 to simply an 0-8-0. I have wondered the reason for going through the change of removing the front trucks. Was this to make it easier to run through tighter swithces ? Was it to provide better traction ? Or some other reason ?
Pilot trucks were there to ease entry into curves and, in some cases, to help spread around weight. On a yard loco that will spend it’s last years crawling around, there is no need for help on curves and having all the weight on only drivers, can increase tractive effort.
Some railroads did yard switching with downgraded road power. My prototype never owned a locomotive designed to be a yard switcher once the old Baldwin and Alco-predecessor 0-X-0Ts wore out, decades before my modeling era. Once the N&W retired the pre-1900 R class 0-6-0s they didn’t have a dedicated switcher until the post-WWII acquisition of the ex-C&O S class 0-8-0s.
B&O removed pilot trucks (and shortened front frames) to make 0-8-0s out of retired from the road Consolidations. Others may have done the same. Removing the pilot truck drastically reduced the speed at which the locomotive might cause track damage, so that modification meant that the new 0-something woud be limited to switching duty thereafter.
AFAIK the largest rigid-frame purpose built switcher was the Union RR 0-10-2. Pennsy and NYC had articulated hump engines, and N&W routinely used Y class 2-8-8-2s as yard switchers.
The Union RR in the Pittsburgh area had the only 0-10-2’s. Most of Union’s locos were 0-6-0’s. I’ve heard that the leading truck was eliminated in order to allow the engines to use Union’s short turntable to access their roundhouse. Of course, this would also mean concentrating more weight on the drivers. The tenders were also fairly tall and short, to keep the wheelbase short. These engines were later sold to the DM&IR.
I’m told C&NW had some light USRA 2-10-2’s which had their lead trucks removed for service on the Proviso hump. Large road engines were also serviced at Proviso, so turntable length probably wasn’t a consideration. So I guess weight on drivers was the main concern.
In the 1920’s, B&O converted E-24 Consolidations into L-1 and L-1a 0-8-0’s, as well as converting E-27 2-8-0’s into L-2’s and subclasses. The modifications generally involved removal of the lead truck (probably including some adjustment of the equalized suspension), conversion from Walschaerts’ to Baker valve gear, addition of a rear sandbox, and conversion of the tender to a clear vision type. The lead truck probably was considered superfluous in low-speed switching, and the concentration of all weight on the drivers was probably desirable in a switcher. Since these engines were generally used at fairly large terminals serving big mainline power, turntable length probably wasn’t a factor.
Tom
Edit: Tomikawa: You were posting while I was typing. I don’t mean to steal your thunder.
Since the majority of the railroads already had yard engines the old worn mainline engines would head for the bone yard to await final disposition to a scrapper or be sold on the used market-if there was a market for these engines…All to sadly the majority was scrapped.
Also recall after WWII steam locomotives was falling from favor since they was a labor intense locomotive.
The Northern Pacific used many Y class Consolidations as switchers. I believe they used tham with the pilot trucks still on them, at least they did with the Y-1 Consolidations. The did either convert the tenders or switched to tenders with the top of the coal bunker narrowed down to provide better vision while backing.
I agree that it was sad that so many were scrapped. But I still cannot understand why a RR would go through what I assume would be a very big expense and pain to remove the front trucks. Why noyt leave them on ? The fact that they took them off has to men there was a very specific reason to remove them. I wonder wht that reason was. Some here have mentioned speed, more traction etc…One would think somewhere there is a record of why the RR removed the front wheels. ???
Some railroads did especially in the last years of steam…The reason was simple that aging 2-8-0 working the yard was soon to be replaced with a diesel switcher and there was no need to justify the cost of removing the lead trucks.
But,why bother to get the cost authorization to do the rebuild if you already have a fleet of newer 0-8-0s? Nope to the bone yard.
The Illinois Central was one of the last Class 1 railroads to run steam. The built many unique locomotives at their Paducah, KY shops.
They converted 11 2-6-0 Moguls to 0-6-0 switchers in 1942-43.
From 1937-1942 they rebuilt 57 2-8-0s and 2-8-2s into 0-8-0s. During this same time period an additional 31 2-8-0s built by Rogers between 1902-04 were converted into 0-8-0s.
An additional 14 2-8-0s built by Baldwin in 1911 (this is the same engine that was the prototype for the Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0) were rebuilt into 0-8-0s.
In 1941-42 50 2-8-2s were converted to 0-8-2s for yard service.
Five 0-10-0s were built from 2-10-2s aquired when the IC purchased the Alabama and Vicksburg railroad.
Besides removal of pilot and/or trailing trucks, most of these conversions included changes to the cylinders and boilers to increase steam pressure and tractive effort. All of the conversions moved the headlight from the front of the smokebox to the top. For some reason switchers on the IC always had their headlights on top of the smokebox and road engines had the headlight centered on the front of the smokebox.
I’ve heard that some roads favored a high headlight on switchers because it was possible for a trainman riding on the front of the engine to block the headlight beam. If you look at photos of steam switchers, it quickly becomes apparent that this opinion was not universally shared.
I believe many of those I.C. rebuilds had boilers that were radically modified, or replaced. The replacements often came from locos of a different class/type. I.C. seems to have been the most “rebuild-happy” road on the continent! Rebuilt road power iuncluded 4-8-2’s with boilers from copies of the USRA heavy 2-10-2. I believe the 2-10-2 frames were then shortened and used to build 2-8-2’s with different boilers.
YGW,
Steam engines get shopped somewhat frequently. For a old 2-8-0 to go into yard service, it would probably be run through the shop first to fix any problems. In that process, they might very well lift the loco right off her wheels and put on new driver tires. Doing so would require the removal of the pilot wheels. Putting them back on would actually cost more time & money.
The main reason for removing a supporting axle is to add more weight on drivers. Reserching and modeling the PRR I have come to the conclusion that the road foremen of engines was always striving for weight on drivers over any other gadget or axle count. When the I1s 2-10-0 became the major freight hauler there were hundreds of surplus 2-8-0 (The road had over 5,000 at one time) that were down graded to yard and transfer service. A few had the front truck removed that required bigger springs on the drivers due to the front pilot and steps hitting the rail. After that they retained the front truck.
Oliver Iron Minng did this to some old DMIR Consolidations for additional weight on the drivers. One is on covered outside display outside in Mt. Iron, MN
That’s assuming if the approval was given to repair or rebuild that engine and that may be a hard sell since a 2-8-0 could work a yard just as easy as a 0-8-0.
Railroads use their locomotives as they seen fit and a costly rebuild may not have been authorized.
The shop General Manager would not simply say “Go get the 1223 and we will rebuild it into a 0-8-0”.
The shop General Manager would plea his case of rebuilding 1223 to his bosses and if they deem it necessary they would approve the funds other then that to the bone yard 1223 went.
When a minor derail occurred, steam locos most often derailed just the lead trucks. The opportunity for this was extremely high in daily yard/terminal operations, and of course a derail could tie up operations for hours.
So, their removal was kind of a preventive maintenance of sorts.
Just another area where our layouts mimic the real thing… those lead trucks on steamers are most often the wheels that “go their own way”…
I don’t know the reason for the prototypes but I had a pre-Spectrum Bachmann Consolidation and the front truck just wouldn’t stay on the rails no matter how I adjusted it so I eventually just took it off and made it an 0-8-0. Front trucks continue to be a problem with Bachmann’s standard line. I bought a Niagra not realizing it was standard line and the front trucks just wouldn’t stay on the rails. They flopped all over the place. That loco has been permanently parked in the engine terminal as a static model. Bachmann seems to have solved that problem with their Spectrum line as I have a number of those and they operate reliably although they don’t have a lot of pulling power.
Originally locomotives did not have a pilot truck. The pilot truck was ADDED to improve tracking on road engines. Also you are not seeing the system of levers attached to the pilot truck to help steer the lead axle and to transfer weight between the frame/lead driver and the pilot truck. Unless you have a highly detailed model in a larger scale, all that mechanism is not modeled.
By removing the pilot truck it removes a wheel that serves no purpose in yard service. The pilot truck provides better operation at higher speeds. Most switchers spend their lives at speeds less than 20 mph. Why have something that is unecessary, has to be maintained and reduces the power of the engine?