If you are referring to the locomotive, it's a 2-4-4-2 compound mallet. Look at the difference between the front and rear cylinders, steam is used twice before exhausting up the stack. This was an economic development that was in vogue for a number of years.

The 2-4-4-2 design is what makes it rare as there were relatively few constructed and even less extant today. You can ride a 2-6-6-2T in South Dakota at the Black Hills Central. It is such a success that they located and purchased another virtual twin for service there.

Baldwin built three 2-4-4-2s and Alco built one. One Baldwin is at Tillamook, OR and the Alco is preserved in New Zealand. Two out of four is a pretty high preservation rate.

The Alco 2-4-4-2 in New Zealand is Taupo Totara Timber Company #7, preserved at Glenbrook Vintage Railway as GVR #4. It had been in service but is currently stored awaiting overhaul.

http://www.gvr.co.nz/GVR+Steam+Train+Ex ... TTT+7.html

Phil Mulligan

Found out some interesting info on the "Logging Mallets" website. The ALCO 2-4-4-2 was supposedly built in 1907, before all of the Baldwin built Mallets. But then it was not delivered until 1913. Why the delay? It is also 42" gauge.

The third 2-4-4-2 Baldwin built Mallet had 40" drivers; meaning the three Baldwin's were built with 48" driver ("Skookum"), then 44" drivers (Little River # 148) and then 40" drivers. So each engine had smaller drivers than the previously built 2-4-4-2!

Les

Skookum was originally Little River 124 right ?

what type of speeds could these locomotives run at ? 25mph or so?

I have to wonder why they chose that wheel arrangement instead of a more conventional type. What are the benefits of having two sets of two drivers with an additional set of cylinders and valve gear to maintain as opposed to having a small Mikado or even a larger Prairie. I would guess the axle loading is lower overall than a conventional type locomotive but wouldn't that cut down on adhesion?

.

ns2110 -

According to the story, Little River (for which # 126 was built) had tight curves. They had ordered a Prairie that had to be returned due to the wheel base being too long. They then got a 2-6-2 with a shorter wheelbase. They eventually wanted a 2-8-2 type for its greater pulling power but it wouldn't take the curves, so that's when the idea to acquire an eight drivered locomotive with split drivers (articulated) was formulated. The problem with the 126 was that it was too heavy for the track and they returned it to Baldwin for a lighter 2-4-4-2 (number 148), which worked out satisfactorily.

Les

Ahhh okay. Makes sense.

This link is from a personal modeller's site, but it has some other photos of the Skookum that may be appreciated here--including what looks like a pile of junk, which is now looking like a locomotive.

http://oldtomstoys.com/2016/03/19/baldw ... 2-skookum/

Some other pix here, too.

http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php?1,101372,101381

Sometime in 1920, "Skookum" came under the ownership of the Carlisle-Pennell Lumber Company and sometime thereafter, the engine was reconfigured thusly:

http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/list/ ... hansen.jpg

Changes included moving the airpump up to the front of the smokebox, relocation of the headlight down to the pilot and other miscellaneous changes including losing the name "Skookum" and given the number 7. It appears in the photo that, when lettered for Carlisle Lumber, the boiler was not painted black, but a lighter color, although probably not the olive green that she first carried when originally built by Baldwin. After Carlisle sold the engine to the Deep River Logging Company in 1933 as their number 7, she reverted back to her "as built" configuration.

Les

Perhaps the source of the stories behind #126 and LRRR:

Whistle over the Mountain
Ronald G Schmidt & William S. Hooks, 1994

"The engine, number 126, with a spacing of only 64 inches between the 48 inch diameter drive wheels in each set, proved not flexible enough to negotiate the sharp curves of the gorge roadbed." Pg 64

"It was followed immediately in 1909 by the delivery of #148, the smallest articulated locomotive ever built for a North American standard gauge railroad. The design was generally similar to that of #126 except for certain key differences. Among these were its 6000 pound lighter weight, the spacing between the drivers, which was shortened to 60 inches from 64 and the driver diameter which was reduced to 44 inches." Pg 65

"Number 148 was very successful and served the Little River as the main hauler of log trains, first from Elkmont to Townsend and later in the lower reaches of the Middle Fork drainage to Townsend." Pg 65

"Its primary function was hauling the long, heavy log trains on the 18 mile trip down the gorge to the mill. An engine of considerable capacity was necessary to deliver all of the timber needed for mill operations each day in one trip because of the time required for the long run and return precluded more than one trip a day. The grade and curvature of the railroad over this stretch eliminated the use of a conventionally designed heavy engine. The engine which resulted from the narrow design criteria imposed by these circumstances was truly unique." Pg 65.

The authors discuss the color of the locomotive and guess it was black, not Southern green/gold trim as some have apparently reported. I have to wonder if perhaps it wasn't delivered in Baldwin green, as we've seen with BLW #26. Of course it can be pointed out that the operational LRRR #110, is the smallest standard gauge Pacific made for US operation.

The book ends on this sad point:

"Stuart McNiell, the last operations manager for the Little River Lumber Company, carried the company files out the back door of the office and dumped them in the Little River. Thus ended the logging era in the Great Smoky Mountains."

Cheers,

Bob Bunge

Looks like she may have been Baldwin green with the optional "planished" jacket.



http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/list/ ... 6Bldrb.jpg

Her complete page from "Mallets in the Tall Timber"/"Logging Mallets" (one is the page title, the other part of the address):

http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/list/ ... ver126.htm

As noted, Little River 126 was returned to Baldwin due to weight issues, and was replaced by the similar but slightly smaller 148. If this photo of 148 is any indication, the Skookum will be right at home on a passenger train.



http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/list/ ... ver148.htm