I ran across this photo of a B&O 2-8-8-0 in a 1922 Railway Age. Looking at it, I thought to myself, "well that's an unusual-looking locomotive." It seems to have a smallish capacity tender for such a big engine (or not?). The absence of a trailing truck seems unusual too.

After pondering the photo, a quick check online showed that none of this type have survived in the US. So now I'm curious, is there anything to say about the 2-8-8-0 type of steam loco? Was it more of a hybrid (or a derivative) type than a distinct type? Do "we" as a community wish one was still around, or is it not really a big loss they are all gone? Any thoughts from you folks who know about steam locomotive history?

The Boston and Albany had a small class of 2-6-6-2s Mallet-Compounds at one point. While they were effective at moving large amounts of freight, they were essentially drag engines and were uneffective at higher speeds. The first class built, the N-1 didn't have superheaters (unlike the later NE-1a, which had 1001 sq ft.). When one of the examples of the N-1 class (No. 1249) was tested on the NYC's Pennsylvania Division, where it proved successful enough at pulling 70 car trains at 10 to 14 miles per hour that a modified version (the NE-2a, which preceded the nearly identical NE-1a by two years) was produced. By the time of testing on the Pennsylvania Division, the 1249 was equipped with a "security brick arch" and superheaters. But the development of the superpower concept could be considered the downfall of earlier Mallet type locomotives. Again, I use the Boston and Albany as an example. The A-1 class of 2-8-4s not only were more technically advanced (2111 sq ft. of superheating surface as compared to the 1001 sq ft. in the first 2-6-6-2s) and were able to move the freight that the mallets were capable of handling at double the speed and using less fuel. The name of the game is always effiency. That's not to say that saving at least one of the early mallet designs wouldn't have been desireable from the standpoint of technical comparison. Imagine having that B&O 2-8-8-0 alongside one of the surviving C&O H6 2-6-6-2s...

Keep in mind that in the days of steam many of the large railroads ordered locomotives that were often custom engineered. A number of factors were in play here: length of the divisions, distance between water stops, grade and curve profiles, length of the turntables, etc...

The advent of the diesel changed all that as one standard locomotive fit into nearly every job at almost every railroad.

I'd trade five of them for one preserved EM-1 2-8-8-4.

This morning I watched this old 8-mm film from Blackhawk that has several views of B&O 2-8-8-4's ("last and biggest steamer built for the B&O"). Yes, they are definitely big.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV0-2xvmguY

steam design started its superpower revolution starting about 1910 and the first world war. Engines like this start showing up but it becomes a tried and true or false echo, did it work for you?...using current designs and tweaking up a little more.
That engine almost has a Y6b look yet it isn't quite there, the Y6b's and A's were very successful.

A few railroads had the 2-8-8-0 type on their rosters, usually just "dabbling" in the type. The Pennsy had one. I think the Santa Fe had a couple. But the railroads that had a fair number of them used them in heavy freight service, where speed was not an important factor. And these engines lasted toward the end of steam era on those railroads. The B&O had over 75 as I recall. As did the Union Pacific. I think that the U.P. called theirs "Bull Mooses". Other signicant users were the Kansas City Southern which had about 20 as I recall and the Great Northern which rostered 25. Most of these I believe were built as compounds, and many were later simpled. The GN's were interesting because they had Belpaire fireboxes which gave them a particularly "massive" look. Alas, as stated previously, none of the type were preserved for posterity.

Les

The small tender on the 2-8-8-0 is probably because the engine was intended for helper service, rather than as a road freight engine. If it was a helper, it would have had a relatively short run over a grade and then returned immediately to its terminal where fuel and water were available.

Richard -

Good explanation. Another one is that some big locomotives had shorter tenders to enable them to fit on existing turntables.

Les

One thing- I don't think the 2-8-8-0 is really a distinctive "type" (at least not this one) compared to similar 2-8-8-2's. Adding an 18th axle to a locomotive that already has 17 is not much of a difference.

IIRC, at least one road omitted the trailing truck and then added it later on their early 2-8-8-0's as they found it made the locomotives track better in reverse.

Any 'extinct' class of engine is a loss, regardless. That said, some locomotives have a more power train fan draw than others. So there is the balance between 'historically significant' v/s 'a lot of train buffs would love to see one'. How about the railroad that used it? What's the interest for the road name? Then you also get into if a engine is significant for what reason. Where they fabled in their times (such as N&W Y6s, or UP 4000s) or did they represent an important leap in technology? In the latter case, that wouldn't always equate with fan interest.
And you need to take the 'storage factor' into account. Say one was donated somewhere. Would it still be around today? Not many museums or parks can set aside the room a beast like that would take up. Many would rather save two smaller locomotives (which would have a stronger chance of operating again someday) instead, I'd think.
A drag articulated from a RR that plenty of preserved engines are still around wouldn't be a considered as much of a 'loss' by many people for all these reasons, I'd think. Still, it's nice to dream of seeing something like this in modern times, on display (or better yet, under steam). That will always be a nive dream for any locomotive that every existed...

Ummmm...... not even the Virginian Triplex or a 4-8-4+4-8-4 Beyer-Garratt got THAT high, unless you count tenders.

Doh! Didn't have any coffee this morning and counted wheels instead of axles, but you get my drift.

Baldwin built 31 compound Mallet 2-8-8-2's in 1917-1919 for the Reading. The first eleven later sacrificed their boilers for rebuilds into 2-10-2's but the latter 20 were rebuilt in the 1930s and 1940s as simple engines, plus had their trailing trucks removed, thus making them 2-8-8-0's. They ran into the early 1950s.

Originally they all had short tenders and could fit on an 85-foot turntable.

-- Rick Bates

Rick -

Thanks for the info. I didn't know about the Reading 2-8-8-0's or I would have mentioned them.


Les