Much-traveled 2-6-2 from Mississippi, when still at Lincoln, New Hampshire. It's now at Edaville, in Massachusetts.

http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?photo ... ydate%3A33

My 2 cents worth. In my opinion, (consider this to be a disclaimer) as a general rule the 2-6-2 is the ugliest wheel arrangement there is among rod engines, with the exception of tank switchers. (OK guys, get out your lighters). 250 is the exception to the rule. I think she is the prettiest 2-6-2 still in existance. (with apologies to all you Santa Fe fans). Of course, as a Virginian, I'm prejudiced in favor of southern shortline engines.

I donno, it looks pretty much like a stock Baldwin catalog engine to me. Doesn't look all that different from Tuskeegee RR 101 at IRM, except the 101 has slide valves.

Gary:

I will agree that not all 2-6-2's were (are) great looking machines, but there is no such thing as an ugly steam locomotive. At least in MY opinion. Even "ugly" engines at least had "character." As for the Prairies, great looking ones included:

1. Santa Fe's 1800's (but not their earlier 1000 & 1100 numbered locos.)

2. The Milwaukee Road and CGW 2-6-2's.

3. McCloud River Railroads # 25

As for the ex-B&HS # 250, she was average looking at best. Although she looked a heck of a lot better under steam than as a static display.

And as for the wheel arrangement itself, in this steam preservation era, it may be the absolute best for museums and tourist lines. In both tender and tank varieties. Not too big, nor too small. Decent power, with both pony and trailing trucks to "lead" drivers into curves and through switches when running in either direction.

Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum/North Judson, Indiana)

I personally like 2-6-2's, but some do have odd proportions, or look like they'd really rather be 2-8-2's.

George Drury once penned a delightful opinion piece for Trains Magazine, where he boldly nominated his choices for "the mediocre of railroading" - the most unremarkable or mundane locomotives, stations, railroads, rolling stock, etc. When it came to steam locomotive wheel arrangements, he picked the Prairie, noting "What's not as stable as a Pacific nor as strong as a Mikado nor as simple as Mogul? . . . Can you think of any service for which something else wasn't just a little better than the 2-6-2?"

Alan Maples

It's been discussed on this board (and else where) that if you were to start building new locomotives that 2-6-2's would be the way to go. But in reality, how many are running? It's struck me odd how many times the 250 has been passed around, and while considered idea, it's never really made it.
How many 2-6-2's are out there?
How many railroads could or would use one?

Here she is as displayed today at Edaville.

The dilemma of operating 2-6-2's is a bit of a chicken-or-egg question. It appears that very few 2-6-2's were available for operational preservation at the time of the startup of such lines as Strasburg, Stone Mountain, Rail City, Edaville, etc. and even fewer for later operations like WMSR, Blue Mountain & Reading, Grand Canyon, etc. Many of the survivors, mostly AT&SF "stuffed and mounted" 2-6-2's scattered across Kansas and elsewhere, are still just too big for a "normal" low-speed, low-maintenance steam operation (69-inch drivers, anyone?). And a few of the examples that actually have operated, such as Everett/H&BTM 11 and B&HS 250, have, let's be honest, suffered badly from the ravages of sloppy or negligent handling. Rest assured that if Strasburg had had a 2-6-2, it would now be a jewel in the fleet.

A notable exception to the "neglected" 2-6-2's: Camp Five's Laona & Northern 2-6-2 "4-Spot", which has been operating pretty much on its home rails since 1926!!!!

Oddly enough, in looking up these locos I found a pair of narrow-gauge 2-6-2's, including Argent Lumber #5, listed in the "gospel according to St. David of Conrad" as stored in the Cleveland, Ohio area along with a couple other steamers. Anyone know what happened to THIS stash?

The aforementioned collection in the Cleveland area which included the Argent #5 (a Lima no less) would have been that of George Roose of Cedar Point amusement park fame. His own collection (seperate from Cedar Point's own 3' operation) was split up after his death in the early/mid '80s. The Argent #5 went to Roy Ramey (Nevada County Traction Co.) in Nevada City, CA and, while the 2' Plymouth is the preferred power there, it was last I heard still being steamed up a few times each year (still wood-fired) A 1922 Vulcan 0-4-0T turned 2-4-0 and a Crown rebuild of an 1897 Porter 0-6-2T (ex-Barker & LePine Company "Melodia B", now also a 2-6-2) went to the late Bill Norred of California and now operate on the privately-owned Pacific Coast Railroad in Santa Margarita, CA. I believe the Roose collection also included one or two other Louisiana plantation engines (Patout and Godchaux I believe) as well as the 1878 Porter-Bell "D.B. Harrington" now back in Michigan at a museum.

I for one am quite fond of the 2-6-2 wheel arrangement; seem like multi-tasking "go anywhere, do anything" sorts of engines suitable for a wide variety of assignments. In my opinion, what these machines may lack in size is more than matched in personality. In the shadow of this widespread infatuation with so-called "big steam", engines like the 2-6-2s are truly the ones with character. The volunteers out at the Niles Canyon Railway here in California operate the ex-Quincy Railroad #2 (an ALCO 2-6-2T) in season, is in the later stages of restoration of another ALCO tank prairie (ex-Robert Dollar Co. #3), and also owns a third (ex-Sierra #30).
In addition, the ex-Venice Railway #2 (albeit 18" gauge) is also operable at the Billy Jones Wildcat Railroad, the Redwood Valley Ry. in Berkeley recently completed a 15" gauge Prairie of their own, and the Big Trees & Pacific even came close to acquiring the ex-B&HS #250 from the Wolfeboro in the '80s.

Of course, having grown up with SS&S #26 10 miles away, I was turned on to Praries early. I hope we see her run some day.

When I think about it, I was pretty spoiled by Prairies as summers at our hose in NH always included major doses of #250.

Rob

Beauty as we all know is in the eyes of the beholder. I for one always thought these smaller locomotives were just about perfect. Like many I grew up around smaller steam and I guess that is where I am still. I have also noticed that my tastes change. I have never liked the "fat" boilers that are sometimes incountered on early 1900's steam, such as the MC Copper Range #29, Polson #2, Richard Hineboughs/Steve Butlers Nez Pierce #9. But as mentioned above, sometimes the less then perfect have the charachter and charm. Kind of like eating liver {or other things}, after a while it tastes pretty good.

Thanks for the pictures, I agree that she is pretty, even if a catalog Baldwin engine. I also hope the insulation is not under the jacketing anymore.

One more thing. I remeber asking about the Nez Pierce #9 {Northlake, Wi}
engine, the crews loved her and she had power to spare on the grades, never gave a lot of mechanical problems. Like all machines, when used for what they were designed for they probably functioneded great. Cheers, John

If I could get my mitts on a 2-6-2 like the 250, I'd jump at it. In fact, even though she's not from SC, the 250 is on my short list of engines I'd like to get for SCRM. She'd be perfect for us (well, less perfect than getting the 19 or 31 back, but...).

Actually, if you want an ugly, practically useless locomotive, imagine a 2-6-4. There's a reason none were built for service in the US!

And I CAN imagine a service for which nothing is "just a little bit better than a 2-6-2" -- a short, twisty railroad with sharp curves and lots of grades on which relatively short passenger excursion trains are operated, and there's nowhere to turn locos around.

The Rockton & Rion preferred Mikes because they were hauling some pretty heavy freight, and the loads had to go generally uphill. While I'd love to have the 19 back "home," she's really bigger than we need for what we're doing with the railroad. The R&R engine I really wish we had would be #5, Baldwin #58691, built 1925, with 16x24 cylinders and 46-in. diameter drivers, the only loco the R&R ever bought new. Ben Heyward was quoted as saying, "she's too small for the job, we'll blow her up!" when the loco arrived. I don't think they did that, but they did make her into razor blades by the 1950s. Pity.

If only we'd had the $$$$$ when the 250 was up for sale...

Hi Matt!

Just curious. I know that you have stated previously that Rockton & Rion 2-8-0 # 712 was a "basket case" and that you were only going to restore her cosmetically. My question is, what are the problems prohibiting a restoration to service? Bad boiler? New boilers are being built all the time these days. Anything else could probably be rebuilt. I realize that this is a money problem, but the Consolidation IS a genuine R&R steamer. And, she would be the only ex-Atlantic Coast Line engine to run if a restoration WAS done. At 81 tons she would seem to be just about the right size. Just wondered if you guys had ever even considered this option?

Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum/North Judson, Indiana)

Folks,

Having lived with the parts pile of Robert Dollar #3 at Rio Vista for many years; I looked into them a bit and so far no one has mentioned what they were really good at, that was lumber railroading. Apparantly they were just right for light and curvey track. And as noted they could go backwards and forwards equally well.

The Niles Canyon Railway folks are busy beavers in getting the Robert Dollar 3 put back together, so some day soon we will be able to go for a very scenic ride behind her.

And as for my .02 cents worth. It is not the 2-6-2 wheel arrangement that people find bad looking; but the fact that so many of them are tank engines. those are what I find ungainly to say the least.

Ted Miles