Hello to All !
I have been given a Old Varney “2-8-4” Berkshire Locomotive,
it is only the Loco with out the tender, and me being born at the demise of “Steam” to Diesel,
I’m at a loss at knowing who ran them and what tender they used ?
is there any info on line to where I mite find photo’s or info to tenders used???
Thank You for your time and help with this,
Take Care,
Russ
You will find a good answer here (look under “Wheel Arrangements” at the top):
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/
Once you have a list of organizations that ran Berks, look for them under the steam locomotives link for each fallen flag listed here…scroll down to the alphabet in blue.
Looking up the prototype Berks won’t do you any good. It was a free-lance design but w/ a nice “chunky” look to it. If I recall correctly it had a cast lead or bronze boiler and should be a great puller. You might want to remotor it w/ a can type. Any 12 wheel coal tender of the 2000-2200 gal. capy would work (off hand, I can’t think of any oil burning Berks except the SP which were ex-B&M and were originally coal). The brass driver tires might present a conuctivity problem, if so, you could consider P/U from both rails via the tender.
Pick a tender! Pick any tender - although I would probably not put a centipede on the drawbar I am sure that someone - probably CNJsomebodyorother - will come up with a photo proving that somebody did run Berks’ with centipede tenders and this will provoke intense guffawing and leg slapping - got ole’ R.T. again on this one!!
Hang on, wait a second. Now while I agree it may not be an exact replica for any given prototype, what if Russ is simply going for a “capture the flavor” model? I can understand how and why he may wish to paint it up for a given RR, even if it’s not an exact match. I wouldn’t be surprised if the model were actually available in whichever paint scheme he so chooses (within reason, of course). I’ll lead by example:
Brad
Somebody within the last year or so ran a nice article on Berkshire history. It was either “Classic Trains” mag, or a special issue from them…maybe “Steam Glory 2”?? Had charts showing who owned 2-8-4’s and how many, with lots of pics. Maybe check over on the Classic Trains forum or the mag’s website.
The majority of Berkshire Types followed the NKP design and were known as the Van Swearigen Berkshires. The railroads that used them were the NKP, C&O, Pere Marquette, and W&LE. Copies that were used by other railroads included the RF&P, Virginian and L&N. And these were inspired by the C&O 2-10-4’s which was a scaled up version of the Erie 2-8-4’s.
The other major type of 2-8-4 was the B&A 2-8-4’s with 63" drivers versus the 69" drivers of the above locos. Loose copies of the B&A 2-8-4’s were the B&M, MP, and C&NW. There were also some other type of 2-8-4’s like the DT&I and Norfolk Southern and the ATSF’s which were just enlarged Mikados.
I believe the Varney 2-8-4 was the 63" driver type and a suitable tender could be the Mantua Mike/Pacific tender which is a scaled down NKP tender. You could also try to find an old Rivarossi NKP Berk Tender or the Proto NKP Berk Tender.
Just my .02
Rick
Who ran 2-8-4 Berkshires?
I’m not entirely sure about the C&O but I am the first two.
Tom
I’m running a 12 wheel NYC coal tender behind my brass Berk, it’s longer than most berk tenders but it sure looks great.
If you can find one, one of the MDC tenders (which used to be available as separate kits) would work too, as would a Bowser one too I suspect.
Lots of tenders on that auction site. C&O assuredly ran 2-8-4’s, but they called them Kanawhas, after the WVa river of that name. The NKP, C&O, PM, and VGN versions mainly varied in their dome configuration(s). Oh, and the VGN’s were the best. [:D]
There are over twelve railroads that ran the 2-8-4 configuration, from the AT&SF to Boston & Albany. If you check with the steamlocomotive site that I listed above, you will be surprised how many actually used at least one of these.
The following list shows the year the first series of each railroad listed purchased their first round of 2-8-4’s. The qualtity is the total purchased by that railroad. Some of the railroads actually owned more from mergers. I believe the orginal Lima A1 also was sold to the IC.
Railroads using 2-8-4’s
Year Qty Railroad Name
1926 45 Boston & Albany
1926 50 Illinois Central
1927 85 Erie
1927 16 A Topeka & Santa Fe
1927 12 C&NW
1928 2 Toronto, Hamilton &Buffalo
1928 25 Boston & Maine
1929 29 Missouri Pacific
1934 80 New York, St Louis and Chicago
1935 5 Detroit Toledo & Ironton
1937 34 Pere Marquette
1937 32 Wheeling & Lake Erie
1940 5 Norfolk Southern Original Railroad (1940)
SLOW DRAG CITY.
The 'Berk’s were a later version of the 2-8-2 predominent slow freight engine - with a larger Firebox for more steam.
ASIDE from who had the ‘bestest’ and ‘mostest’:
The 2-8-2 ‘Mikados’ gave birth to not only the ‘Berkshire’, but 2-10-2s on the Santa Fe - called “big Mikes” by their crews - and 2-8-8-2 artic. coal haulers.
I disagree, not all the Berk’s were drag engines, those with 69"-70" drivers were made in order for the railroads to provide faster service. The NKP Berk’s were acquired to compete speedwise with the Wabash 4-8-4’s which were taking freight away from the NKP with their increased speeds. The larger firebox enabled the locomotive to have more steaming capacity to feed the larger pistons on sustained runs, which the smaller Mike’s could not do with their smaller fireboxes.
The evolution of the NKP Berk was that the C&O was looking for an engine to move 160 cars unassisted from Ky to the docks at Toledo. They slide ruled up an Erie Berkshire to make a 2-10-4 which did all the C&O wanted and could also be used in fast freight with their 69" drivers. When the NKP was looking for a new fast freight loco to replace their USRA Mikes they slide ruled down the C&O Texas to come up with the NKP Berkshire type which was then copied by the other Van Sweringen Roads C&O and Pere Marquette. Similar engines were ordered by the W&LE, RF&P, Virginian and L&N. Therefore this design accounted for 298 out of 611 Berkshire type locomotives.
Rick
The 2-8-8-2 did not “evolve” from anything but Anatole Mallet’s design and the brains at N&W. The USRA borrowed the N&W’s design in WWI, and then after the war the N&W continued the refinement of the 2-8-8-2, culminating in the Y6b; the ultimate Mallet.
What a railroad called their engines usually didn’t mean much. C&O called their 2-8-2’s Big Mikes- because that’s what they were. The B&O called their 2-10-2s Big Sixes, because of their numbering.
It is important to recognize that not all 2-8-4s were even all that similar. The smaller wheeled versions were designed and built with far different intentions than the later so called “Van Sweringen” Berks from Lima, which were perhaps the epitome of the pure fast freight flyers.
articulated engines grew out of the need for larger engines and the abilility to handle curves, hence the articulation.
The Varney 2-8-4 seems like it is close to the C&NW version, and I am modeling a small chunk of the C&NW, if I can find one on ebay, I will buy it.
The Varney design will not be prototypically correct for other lines lest you study photos and do a little detailing work.
from that list is interesting some big name lines are missing, like PRR, NYC, who dieselized sooner.
The B&A and the P&LE, both of which were NYC subsidiaries, had 2-8-4s. It was the Bershire Hills on the B&A that gave the type it’s common name in the US.
Cheers,
Mark.
The Santa Fe 2-10-2s were a development of their 2-10-0s, the trailing axle initially added to improve their ride and tracking when running tender first. They weren’t influenced by 2-8-2s. Neither are 2-8-8-2s derived from Mikados. Anatole Mallets first articulated was built in 1888, the first 2-8-2 in 1897.
Cheers,
Mark.