The cover story in the May 2005 issue of Trains magazine covers 21st century steam locomotive operators in an article entitled "Six-Coupled Gets the Job Done" by RyPN associate editor Erik Ledbetter. Well done.

I was very excited to see that issue in the mailbox today. The breakdown of the various six coupled arrangements was the icing on the cake.
Jim Wrinn's editorial about taking the tourist roads seriously should be carved in stone.

Amen! I gave the issue and article to my director to read --- who has little or no interest in steam --- and he loved it. If this and "That 70's Issue" are the signs of things to come, I can't wait for the next issue to hit the mail box!

TJG

Thanks, guys. You're very kind. If you have any feedback on the article I'd be glad to hear from you, here or back-channel. And let me take a minute to thank the people--many of the RyPN readers--who were so incredibly helpful with interviews and photographs.

A fantastic article, with pragmatic, far-reaching observations. Great, great article!

A question: somewhere back in my mind I've heard that switchers (0-6-0s, 0-8-0s, etc), i.e. anything without pony and trailing trucks, are (all other things being pretty much equal) harder on track-I may have read this years ago in "The Road To Paradise" about Strasburg's 0-6-0 #31. Is that still the case? And if so, is the feeling that the increased wear-and-tear on track is easier/cheaper to deal with vs. operational and financial considerations of operating bigger motive power on museum/tourist RR trackage?

In any event, among other things this provides additional food for thought about potentially repatriating six-coupled steam from Cuba (if/when the political hurdles can be overcome, etc).

Perhaps Linn Moedinger, Kelly Anderson, or some other real-life steam operating people can chime in here with their own far-better-qualified observations. But until they do, I'll take a shot.

Yes, your memory is good, William Moedinger did indeed talk about how No. 31 pounded the original light Strasburg track structure into flinders during her first few months of operation in "The Road to Paradise".

And yes, it is true that a locomotive without a pilot truck or axle will generally be harder on track than one with such a truck--that's what Linn was alluding to in my article when he said that "Some people trash number 31 becuase she rides rough, they don't like to run her..."

The pilot axle or truck does a number of helpful things for a locomotive that has to operate out of yard limits at track speeds:

1. it provides another axle over which the locomotive's total weight can be distrubuted, lightening the axle loading on all the drivers and somewhat reducing the vertical pounding they administer;

2. it provides an additional point of suspension and/or equalization, again reducing the vertical pounding the front driving axle adminsisters when it encounters irregularities in the track

3. it helps impart lateral movement to the engine frame at the start of curves, which "steers" the rigid drivers into the curve and thus reduces the horizontal "spreading" pressure the front driving axle's flange will otherwise administer to the outer rail on a curve.

All these things help make for a smoother ride and less pounding on the track, though I am not engineer enough to try to tell you exactly how much or how little each contributes to the end result.

Now, your next question--does the difference between a six-coupled switcher-type and a six-coupled or eight-coupled engine with a pilot truck or pony axle amount to a quantifiable savings in track maintenance costs? I doubt it.

Any reciprocating steam locmotive pounds the bleep out of track. Choosing to run any steam is the big decision--any steam will drive up your track maintenance costs much above what you would experience using diesels to power the same trains at the same speeds. Compared to this big jump, the track maintenance cost difference between running a steam switcher and a steam road engine is probably very, very small.

The other point Linn and especially Marty Knox made to me is the importance of the initial condition of the steam locomotive before you start restoration. Take two locomotives--a Mogul and an 0-6-0. The Mogul is completely clapped out, and will need new firebox sheets, a new smokebox, a complete running gear rebuild, and heavy rebuilding of all appliances. The 0-6-0 has been stored in a shed, has been kept lubricated, and UT reveals a sound boiler and firebox.

In theory, the Mogul will be easier on your track and cost less to run. In practice, you'll spend so much money rebuilding the clapped-out Mogul compared to the 0-6-0 that you will never, ever recover it in operating savings. So go with the 0-6-0.

Same with a 2-8-0 or 2-8-2 in good condition vs. a clapped-out six coupled engine--go with the locomotive in good initial condition, because operating and running maintenance savings will never match the excess money you spent on the first rebuild.

The only thing that might alter this rule is if an "outside" agency of some kind is paying your initial capital costs, through a grant or subsidy for example. In that case, you are spending "other people's money" on the intial rebuild. Thus, you might do well to choose the locomotive with the lowest possible running costs (i.e., the costs you will have to cover) and let your sugar daddy soak up the higher initial rebuild costs.

Excellent points-and what this brings to mind, in turn, is the latter steam years of the Virginia Blue Ridge Railway. They had an operable 2-8-0 and several ex-Army 0-6-0s. What got sidelined earliest? The 2-8-0. What ran until dieselization? The 0-6-0s. I wonder if their thinking paralled, in some respects, that in the article?

Just want to echo the acclaims of others - nice article, Erik!

Wesley

I would hazard a guess that the flange wear on the less easily repaired drivers would be more of an issue on and 0-8-0 or similar engine than the track wear. Would flange lubricators help both of these situations?

Does the tender act as a pilot when a 2-8-0, 2-10-0 or similar engine runs in reverse for half the trip as on the Strasburg or do the rear drive wheels show more flange wear than the front drive wheels of the same engine?

James

Ditto, Erik. Great Job!

One of the things I learned was the "instability" experienced which equipping a Prairie with high drivers and increasing the speed, presumably in passenger service. This would seem to point to the advantage of the 4-wheel pilot truck as evidenced by the success of Ten Wheelers, Pacifics and Hudsons - all six-coupled.

There are certainly many of these smaller locomotives sitting in our parks. Perhaps we can focus some renewed attention to these.

Thanks again, Erik!

I am of the opinion that it does not. A pony truck (or engine truck in the case of an locomotive running in reverse) guides the engine into the curve because its suspension is integrated into that of the rest of the engine; displace the truck from its normal position directly in line and plane with the driving wheels, and more weight is transferred to the truck, thus serving to pull the front of the engine around. The tender connection is simply a two pin drawbar arrangement with a buffer in between to take the buffing forces. No weight is transferred between the engine and tender. While the drag of the train pulling on this drawbar may attempt to pull the engine into line with the train (the exact opposite of the desired result, which needs to be counteracted by the pony truck) when backing, the tender buffer simply slides back and forth with little effect on the direction the locomotive is heading

Odd that the lightning trip of Death Valley Scotty on the Santa Fe used primarily their long, lean high wheeled express 2-6-2's without any mention of instability at speed. The significant number of these which lived into preservation bodes well for their successful longevity. To which passenger prairies are you referring?

There are certainly many of these smaller locomotives sitting in our parks. Perhaps we can focus some renewed attention to these.

Sure would love to see one of those Santa Fe high wheelers back in steam!

BTW, stopped by the news stand to buy a copy today to no avail - anybody else having trouble finding a copy?

dave

When I made that reference in the article I was thinking of the short-lived pure passenger express Prairies ca. 1900-1905, which had drivers in the 80-inch range. It was these that had the stability issues.

The Santa Fe 1000 and 1100 Prairies were either built with 69-inch drivers or were soon cut down to that size--79-inch drivers didn't work too well for ATSF either. The ATSF 2-6-2s were also built as Vauclain compounds but were soon converted to simples. Once cut down and simpled, they were perfectly sensible machines for general service in level territory.

If more early mainline Prairies had been built from scratch to that plan, the type might have found greater mainline acceptance. Santa Fe certainly got good service out of them, and the Soviet Union had great success with their Su class 2-6-2s (anybody know the driver diameter on those?)...

If memory serves me, the 2-8-0 to which you refer was an old slide valve engine (maybe fitted with Economy valves?) and was smaller than the 0-6-0s, which also had the advantage of standard parts. I rode one of those 0-6-0s once, and they were real bucking broncos at any speed above a brisk walk!

I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that some switch engines and locomotives designed for more than occasional reverse running had a different style of buffer and drawbar arrangement than, say, a high-speed passenger engine. The buffer and drawbar on a switch engine or "double-ender" may have been to allow the tender to lead a little better.

On a similar subject, the Midland Terminal RR in Colorado modified several Army 0-6-0s it acquired at the close of World War II into 2-6-0s. Later, at least a couple of them were converted back into 0-6-0s by the Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line RR in Virginia, the source of some of the Virginia Blue Ridge's 0-6-0s. I believe the modification was designed by an engineer with locomotive construction experience, but I don't recall his name.