The Virginia Blue Ridge is an excellent example of what I said. The ex- Southern 2-8-0 was built in 1907 and pretty much worn out. The Army 0-6-0s were built during World War II and had little or no use. The Raritan River bought Army 0-6-0s and scrapped 2-8-0s in the late 40's. They bought 7 of the Army engines for about $9500 each, and used them until they dieselized in the mid-50's.

I am pretty sure the locomotive's designer was Col. Howard Hill, and he wrote a Trains article (1964 all-steam issue?? Jim Wrinn, help me here!!) about the GI steam locos he designed (primarily the 2-8-2s-- I don't recall he had anything to do with the S-160 type 2-8-0s).

Hill was retired and living in New Jersey in the late 60s, and apparently had some slight association with Sam Freeman and the Black River & Western. I was told by one of the steam guys at BR&W that Hill had, as part of the 0-6-0's original design, also designed a two-axle lead truck as an add-on for certain road services the Army 0-6-0s might be pressed into.

The Midland Terminal engines were about the only ones I ever heard of that had the lead truck added, as per Col. Hill's original design modification.

Having fired and occasionally run #9 at New Hope in the late 70s, I can attest that when you got up over 10-15 mph, the old girl really waddled from side to side and up and down, all at once. It ran at 20-25 mph quite often. Made steam like a son-of-a-gun, though.

It's actually probably easier to add a four wheel pilot truck to an 0-6-0 than to add a two wheel truck, since as far as I know, the common way to handle the suspension on a four wheel pilot truck was to give it a swing motion bolster, with no additional integration to the driver spring rigging. Like any other swing motion truck, (freight car, passenger, Diesel locomotive) the swing links incline, so as the truck tries to offset laterally, it also tries to lift the locomotive, thereby pushing the end of the locomotive in the direction the truck is trying to go.

A story to illustrate this point:

Back when John Scott was Supt. of Operating Equipt. at Greenfield Village, he was having trouble with the pilot truck on one of the little 4-4-0's derailing on a regular basis. This was one of the engines that had originally been a 0-4-0, and when the pilot truck had been added, it was mounted with a simple slide plate. In discussions with Dennis D. at CSRM, Denny suggested that he just build the proper swing motion bolster and add it to the truck. John did, and the problem was solved.

I can't believe that an Army 0-6-0 with a four wheel pony truck looked anything but ugly, but it probably worked quite well.

Erik,

The driving wheel diameter of the Russian "S Class" 2-6-2 is listed at 72 and 3/4 inches. So not too much bigger than the drive wheels on the Santa Fe Prairies.

Thanks, Taylor

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.

Aha, understandable......I'd venture to suggest that you could have stuck 80 inch drivers under any wheel arreangement and size common in those days and created an unstable locomotive. Even 999 was retrofit with realistic diameter wheels. The larger wheels don't seem to have become really useful until locomotives grew larger and heavier, and Walschaerts and piston valves supplanted Stephenson and slide valves about WW I.

No doubt there are some exceptions that prove the rule out there.....

dave

http://www.winwaed.com/rail/LNER/locos/V/v2.shtml

When I think big-drivered Praries that worked well, I think of the LNER V2, with 74" drivers.

Rob

I believe the German "Kreigslok" 2-10-0s built during WW2 were one such example; it was my understanding they were equally happy running backwards as well as forwards.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Surviving World Steam Project

[
I believe the German "Kreigslok" 2-10-0s built during WW2 were one such example; it was my understanding they were equally happy running backwards as well as forwards.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Surviving World Steam Project[/quote]

I think they did on at least one episode of Hogans Heroes.......

dave

Just a photo of Midland Terminal 66 at the Midland tank in 1949, not long before the RR was abandoned. This is one of the Lima engines, noted by the single big sand dome. The MT would have made a good tourist RR had it survived.

http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00012679+OP-12679

Now that's a good-looking, husky little freight hog. The real pilot (instead of footboards) helps. Dual compressors: a must for going down 2-3-4%?? grades without p---ing away your air!!

Speaking of 60's T.V. Shows ---

Not to mention that "Kreigslok" sounds like some Klyon slang-term for locomotive.......

TJG

Praire Village at Madison S.D. has an 0-6-0 loco. Several years ago one of their members told me that it was made to except a pilot truck and there had been some discussion about finding one. He also said there was, at that time one in Canada with a pilot truck. These were both said to be ex army or identical locos.
Is there any truth to this?

The feature article in Trains regarding the six-coupled steam engines is going to be just the thing to get people to thinking and working. I hope it signifies another whole new and healthy direction for the magazine's editorial objectives.

When one considers that technological development ceased in 1919 [in the case of the 0-6-0] with the U.S.R.A. examples -- except for a few super-0-6-0s built for the Seaboard and the Jersey Central, plus the U S Army 0-6-0 design and the the most brilliant 0-6-0's of all, the W&LE roller-bearing super-switchers], it is gratifying indeed to see people several generations beyond the age of the 0-6-0 begin to grasp its potential for doing useful, productive, money-making work in the 21st Century.

One could merely add that 0-6-0 development did continue elsewhere after it ended over here. The Great Western Ry "Collett" 2251 class 0-6-0 tender engines and the Bulleid "Austerity" Class C 0-6-0 tender engines are both good examples of the logical carrying forward of 0-6-0 design and examples of both are in regular service in Britain as this is written.

From the gist of the article, the Californians in their various operations, seem to be leading the way, along with the Wanamaker, Kempton & Southern in Penna., and these are the folks to watch for progress and developments. The Ledbetter article was excellent and provocative.

Jim Warsher
--

Actually ex-Soo Line No. 353 wasn't built to accept a pilot truck as far as I can determine. It and 346 were the last survivors of the Soo Line 0-6-0 fleet.

So, what does Soo 353 have to do with this discussion? That's the engine owned and occasionally operated by the Western Minnesota Steam Threshers Reunion at Rollag, MN. Soo 346 was, as I recall, stuffed and mounted at a restaurant somewhere wearing a ridiculous fake balloon stack. Is this the engine now at Madison, SD?