Good morning, I would like to know a bit more about the USATC 0-6-0 class like the MCC 4039? To what class do these engines belong? Are they similar to the S100 locomotives? I can't find much other than what is listed on the 4039 webpage. I take it these were headed for work overseas but instead were retained in the states. Is there a specific reason why they never were shipped out? Did the S100 replace this class for overseas work?

How many other 0-6-0 tender Army steamers remain besides the 4039? Would one of these locos be too far out of place if one was to somehow end up in Britain restored? After all the big S160's are impressive machines on UK metals.

Just looking for more information on these unique steam switchers?

Robert

According to a roster on John's Alaska Railroad Web Page (http://alaskarails.org/glance/complete-roster.html), the ARR had 11 of the Lima USATC tender 0-6-0s in their 300 class. None appear to have survived. All but one, which operated in Whittier, adjacent to the Whittier tunnel, burned coal. The tender we have for ARR 557 is from one of the switchers. This type of tender was swapped onto 557 around 1950. I believe that the tender on the steam crane at the Museum of Alaska Transportation and Industry is also from one of the 0-6-0s.

The Army at Ft. Richardson in Anchorage also had several and it appears that there may have been others at Ft. Wainwright in Fairbanks. The army locomotives weren't on the ARR roster, but the ARR did the heavy maintenance on the Army locomotives. When going through the ARR archives, I found that the Army exchanged one of the USATC low drivered Consolidations (not S160) to the ARR for one of their 0-6-0s. (ARR had about six of the low drivered Consolidation.) I also found an instance where the ARR loaned the Army one of their 0-6-0s while the were overhauling one of the Army's locomotives. It's unlikely that any of the Army 0-6-0s survived.

The ARR apparently gave them a trial as a road locomotive, but according to correspondence in the archives, they weren't suitable because they tore up the track. One of the letters mentioned that someone in the mechanical department was making a trip to Lima and he was asked to see if it was practical to add a lead truck. There was no mention of what he found.

The ARR 0-6-0s were made in 1944. Maybe too late to make it to Europe?

FYI, the S160 and S100 designations were probably not assigned by the USATC or the builders when the locomotives were built. They appear to have been coined by Tourret when he wrote his books on WWII locomotives many years after the locomotives were produced. I've done extensive research on the S160s and I have found no use of that designation, including in several hundred pages of original engineering notes. The closest I've come is that I have heard ALCO used "S" with the weight in thousands of pounds on photos.

I seem to recall that the Army 0-6-0s (and 2-8-2s) were designed by Col. Howard G. Hill, who wrote a Trains Magazine article about that subject. The piece appeared about 1964-65, and primarily covered the events leading up to the 2-8-2's production. There was little mention of the 0-6-0 tender engines.

Apparently, Col. Hill designed the 0-6-0s to receive a lead truck if desired, at a later date. Many of these locomotives were sold as war surplus in 1946-47. Two shortlines with large groups of the 0-6-0s were Raritan River in NJ, and Midland Terminal in Colorado (about 8-10 at each road). The MT locos were converted to 2-6-0 configuration shortly after their acquisition.

Virginia Blue Ridge had 4 or 5 of them, and 3 made it North in the early 60s-- 2 to New Hope & Ivyland (7 & 9) and 1 to Morris County Central (4039). There was some discussion about having Col. Hill repeat his lead truck design for at least one of these engines, as he was living in NJ at that time. EDM, can you shed any light on this?

Howard P.
NH&I #9 fireman 77-79

This is just a personal "gut feeling," not based on examination of the drawings and dimensions involved...

... but my honest suspicion is that one of these specific "extra-chunky Army 0-6-0s," as I always called them, wouldn't fit the British loading gauges. Maybe you'll get away with it on the Nene Valley Railway, which was built or rebuilt to Berne (Continental) loading gauge. Aside from that, I'm envisioning a bloated 0-6-0 smashing out platforms, lineside bridges, signals, points, etc. as it waddles down the line like an oversized sow trying to squeeze down a narrow alley. And I believe Brother Pincus may be able to confirm my suspicions with a first-hand account of the supposed tracking abilities of NH&I #9......

I believe USATC 0-6-0's, and all the specific locos listed above, have been discussed in detail several times in the 15+ year history of this forum. Try a little searching before making us rehash it all.

Hill designed the 0-6-0Ts and the 2-8-2s and those were what he wrote about in the Trains article (December, 1964). Also mentioned were the S160s for which he denied any involvement. He seemed to be trying to settle old scores in his references to the S160 design and its designer.

Well here's a good question about the lead truck design... Are there any diagrams or drawings of it floating around anywhere?

Hi,

Although a little off topic, I felt the discussion of the optional lead and trailing trucks interesting.

To follow this line of reasoning (feel free to change this to a new topic or remove it as irrelevant), the Crystal River Railroad in Colorado (36" gauge) ordered an 0-8-0 about 1900. It was decided that a pilot truck was needed and Baldwin added one. Due to financial conditions at the time, the loco (#11) could not be paid for.

It ended up in Georgia as the Rome and Columbus 804 and the Gainesville Midland 804.

When the Crystal River RR was better off, it purchased two 2-8-0s to the same plans as the original #11 and ended their days on the D&RGW as their class C21. One more loco was ordered with a heavier/larger boiler but the same wheel spacing (sort of like the DRGW K36/K37 differences - same running grear but larger boiler). It became the D&RGW class C25.

All four 2-8-0s were outside frame locos.

interesting trivia

Doug vV

Copy of a letter sent by Col. Hill on Feb. 2, 1970 to Morris County Central president Earle Gil, concerning the possible fitting of a lead truck to MCC 0-6-0 4039. Obviously, it didn't work out due to costs.

I really can't add anything about the 0-6-0s to this thread that HVP and others have posted, except that the S100 class, at least as I understand it, was 0-6-0 tank engines. I do know a tiny bit about COL Howard Hill, however. Sam Freeman commissioned him to do the form 4 on the 148 when it came up from Florida, and I MAY have met him at Black River, many years ago.

Not too well known is the fact that Sam was also Army Reserve, having served in North Africa during WWII as an artillery spotter pilot. Not surprising that in the late '60s he would have had a fellow USAR officer do the form 4 for the 148.

I too fired the 9 at New Hope, and also made a trip or two firing (as a guest) MCC 4039. Interesting oil burner conversion, to say the least. Yes, they tended to wobble and hunt, but any switcher would. I'm looking forward to seeing 9 run again at SMS in South Jersey.

One additional thought, added. There was a decent drawing of the US Army Transportation Corp (USA/TC, per the designation in the Touret books from Great Britain) in a book on the Alaska Railroad. I took the time and compared all of the important specs to the specs for the USRA 0-6-0 of 20-odd years earlier. My thoughts are that the USA/TC 0-6-0 was based on the USRA, although somewhat simplified by being saturated and using freight car trucks under the tank. I suspect that the air compressor was on the smokebox front for purposes of weight distribution, keeping it on the locomotive's centerline. (And you can't run a turbogenerator off that compressor---)

Thank you for the information provided on these unique machines. Does anyone have builders drawings for the 4039? I found a drawing for the Sou 385 on the Whippany NJ museum site but not the 4039.

Robert

Howdy, The WW2 US Army S115 class 0-6-0's were based on the USRA 0-6-0 design, modified for possible conversion to 2-6-2's (longer frame). Over 80 locomotives were built by ALCO and Lima for domestic service on military bases and were not intended for oversea use. The 0-6-0's were not superheated, and were built as a stop gap to free up diesel locomotive production for more urgent needs. I believe there is at least 8 of these Army veterans still around, including two in Canada. Hope this is useful - David

No drawings, but the attached image shows the value of a used, operable Army 0-6-0 in 1947 was $6,400.

Alan Maples

Howard - I don't think that the Midland Terminal ever had this many former Army 0-6-0's on their roster. I remember seeing photos of the engines and I don't think there were more than four or five that the MT ever put into service. Maybe someone more familiar with Colorado railroads can advise one way or the other. Perhaps the Midland purchased more but never got around to adding the pony truck and getting additional ones running. And then of course, the railroad went out of business. I also think that most of the Army 0-6-0's that the MT ran were Alco's, with perhaps only one Lima built engine. This might have reflected the fact that there were more Alco's than Lima's that became surplus; I think they were built at about a 2 to 1 ratio.

BTW, I've seen some old films of the Moguls on Midland Terminal ore trains. Two or three of the little engines fighting mountain grades with a very impressive show of steam and smoke! Too bad that operation didn't survive a little longer. Maybe one or two of those 2-6-0 conversions might have ended up being saved there in Colorado.

Les

Worthy of an encore, I would say.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33942&p=183379

Allied Military Locomotives of the Second World War by R. Tourret indicates that 0-6-0T locomotives were sent overseas while the 0-6-0 tender locomotives were for stateside service at various military depots.

There were 80 of these locomotives (#4000-4079) that he considers to be based upon the USRA standard design of WWI.

The first 43 were built by ALCO in late 1942. Tourret reports that the builders c/n plates were not assigned in the same order as originally assigned.

Two years later 37 were built by Lima to a slightly different design and delivered in the first quarter of 1944. Numbers 4043-71 were built as coal burners and 4072-79 were built as oil burners.

Hope that this helps.