Although the question of the 2-6-4 is basically moot in North America (although I swear I've heard of at least one set somewhere), the British found the 2-6-4T to be the "Goldilocks" locomotive for them, at least in many commuter, light passenger, and mixed traffic services. It's the steam equivalent of running your railroad with a GP9 rather than a pair of F units. No less than fifteen of the LMS-derived BR Standard 4MT locos survived into preservation, as did a number of LMS predecessors. As with our presumed 2-6-2, it's a loco type that gets no respect, is considered extremely mundane and mediocre, but is popular with those who actually have to work with them, pay the bills, etc.

The one below was built in 1955, was purchased from the Barry scrapyards by the Scottish Railway Preservation Society in 1973, and finally steamed in 2000.



Lest you think this is bad, let me also offer up an even more "wretched" example from the London & North Eastern, the A5 class. Somehow, people expect different things when they envision "a LNER 4-6-2 at Lings Cross"!!

http://alan-lewis-chambers.fotopic.net/p10925976.html

In a paraphrase of Cuchulain's reply to King Conner "But do you have a locomotive that is almost as stable as a Pacific, almost as strong as a Mike, and almost as simple as a Mogul?" I suspect the problem that some people have with Praries is simply this: The mainline railroads, appart from a few in the midwest and west didn't run all that many of them. They were more common on short lines and spcialized railroads, for probably very much the same reasons they're so desirable today.

That said, according at least to Wes Barris of <www.steamlocomotive.com> fame, who usually seems to get his stuff right, there were about a thousand praries in service in the U.S. at one time or another, which though less than Mikes, Pacifics, Consols, or six-coupled switchers, puts them right up there with Northerns and 2-6-6-2s, and well ahead of Berks, Hudsons, Texas types, and so forth. The main line railroads may not have liked them for much the reasons that Mr. Drury listed, but then they had fifty or a hundred, or in some cases many more locomotives in their stable, giving them the option to pickand choose. When you've got to have one, well Pacifics and Mikes are a bit big and rather complex and expensive and Moguls apparently don't ride all that well in reverse, so you get a prarie if you can, or a consolidation and a team of folks good at getting a locomotive back on the rails with 2x4s and sweat if you can't.

Lastly, if I had to nominate a favorite Prarie, I think I'd pick the Wabash G-1. Most of these were rebuilt into the J-2 Pacifics, and gave good service as such, but a few soldiered on in branch line service until nearly the end of steam on the road. There perhaps the qualities tourist lines are seeking were found desirable. They had a good clean well proportioned look to them. In fact, I think the calendar shot of 2069 I've been consulting makes her every bit the equal of some of the J-1 and J-2 Pacifics. She looks like nothing so much as a small main-line freight locomotive. And frankly, anything under steam is beautiful. Heck, anything that was once under steam is beautiful at this point.

Sincerely,
David Ackerman

I think #250 is quite a nice looking engine... too bad her boiler was wrecked from what I understand. I really don't find any problem with the aesthetics of prairies, or tank engines. I particularly like Clark's Trading Post's saddle tank, former EB&L #5.

Do you guys realize 250 has power reverse gear (looked like retrofit, not factory to me) ? I realized this a while ago while climbing on her at Edaville. Not a big engine, I was sort of surprised.

Regards,
Trevor H.

David:

I too liked the looks of the Wabash G-1 2-6-2's. In fact, if I had gone a bit further in my list (earlier in this thread), the Wabash G-1's would have been number 4. Had to stop somewhere though.

Les

The fact that even today 139 survive worldwide in about a dozen countries proves that not everyone shared your opinion!

All of the survivors are tank engines, with pannier tanks on the sides of the boiler, and a coal bunker in the back. And all were built for the same purpose - suburban communter trains. And that is why there are none in the US; we used interurbans and other means for such service.

The extra pair of trailing wheels held the weight of the coal bunker. And they were quite happy running forward or backward; needed for that kind of service. Most of the survivors are of the C11 class in Japan and the 4MT class in the UK. Some of them were and may still be operational in Myanmar (Burma).

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Surviving World Steam Project

For a brief moment in time, consideration was being give to the purchase of the 250 by the Wilmington & Western to help ease the strain on the 98 (this was well after 37 was taken out of service and before the re arrival or the 58 to the W&W) as it was nearing the end of servicable life before a needed rebuild. As someone stated though, the cost associtated with the work needed on it, plus the rather high price tag at the time of sale, ended said consideration rather abruptly.

Shame this didn't happen, the 98 and the 250 would have worked well together and would have been some history since the MSC and the B&HS operated in the same vacinity and if I'm not mistaken, had a common interchange.

Hi Gary,

Here's a nice little 2-6-2 that I bet you'll make an exception for.


Best Regards,
Glenn

http://www.roundhouse-eng.com/srrl24/

I have long believed the 2-6-2 type to be the ultimate design for light to medium duty on tourist/heritage railways. Check out, for example, Everett RR #11, with its big boiler, low drivers, and saturated slide valves. Great for marignal track, easy on coal and water, plenty of oomph. As an extra bonus, its low drivers made it sound like it's going much faster than it is. I could also cite Valley RR #103, a somewhat more esthetically-pleasing version of the small 2-6-2. Baldwin's small 2-6-2's for logging service were specifically designed as double-ended locomotives, and in my opinion, even the pannier tank and saddletank versions have their own special appeal.

However, B&HS 250 is my hands-down favorite 2-6-2, and if I ever win the Powerball, I will personally purchase this locomotive and spend whatever it takes to put it back into service. Such a machine cries out for replication, perhaps in both soak and superheated versions. No. 250 was noted for a touchy throttle and its propensity for slipping its drivers when starting, allegedly due to the throttle design. I rather think it was less-experienced enginemen that were the problem. Anyway, I first got to know 250 when she was in service on the WK&S several decades ago, and have since seen movies of her wheeling freight on the B&HS. I was also regaled by tales of young servicemen riding her tender into town from Camp Shelby (?) during World War II. How I envy them.

At least one 2-6-2 survives in Southern California. It's Ventura County Ry. #2 at Orange Empire Ry. Museum. #2 has been out of service for major boiler work, but is now in process of reassembly.
The California State RR Museum used to show a movie about historic railroading, and it included scenes of #2 switching freight cars at OERM. When I saw the movie, I thought "I know those guys." The folks in front of me wondered where CSRM found such an authentic-looking railroad operation, and I couldn't resist identifying the location and adding that the crew was all volunteers, most of whom had non-railroad day jobs.

Another one for the count, last I had heard the guys up at the CSRM were rebuilding a light logging Prairie from up north to run on the Sacramento Southern. Anyone aware if this is still an active project?

That 2-6-4T is nothing more than a cab-forward Pacific! LOL!

Don C.

Sandy's right - there was at least one class of 2-6-4s in the US - somewhere in the northeast, my memory fails me.

They were referred to as Baltics.

You need to get out more, Matt - those British Standards are rather handsome flying down the main line at full cry. Especially doubleheaded.

And since there are at least three in service in the UK on preserved lines, I wouldn't call them "useless."

JAC

John:

I'm not sure that the 2-6-4T in the U.S. was called a Baltic. I know that the Milwaukee Road's 4-6-4 Hudsons were called Baltics by the railroad. I seem to recall seeing a 2-6-4 designated once as an "Adriatic" type. Not sure if my memory is correct on that or not.

Les Beckman

The main thing is that SCRM doesn't own the engine. It's owned by a local individual who has a somewhat unrealistic impression of the engine's true financial value. A coat of paint is all we're willing to spend on a machine we don't have title to.

As to being a basket case... if you had lots of cash you could probably get her to run. There's enough there to work with. The boiler MAY be salvageable but after 30 years with the lagging holding moisture against the barrel, I doubt it (the lagging was finally removed last year).

The biggest and most obvious problem is a bad crack in the fireman's side saddle casting. The visible part of the crack is a good two feet long and 1/8" wide at the worst spot. Some people have said "sure you could weld that up" but I suspect casting a new saddle half would be the better solution. Cracks in metal castings are usually like icebergs -- what you see is tiny compared to what's actually there.

Not to mention that most of the jewelry has gone missing. Most of the "old heads" at SCRM think we know where a lot of it went but can't prove it. Even if we could prove it, the individual has probably sold it off so there's VERY little chance of recovery.

Basically, H&B #44 is in much better shape overall, even though the running gear is pretty well worn out. Plus we have clear title to the 44 and only have a lease on the 712.

If money was no issue, I'd probably pick the 712 over the 44 as well -- she's a R&R engine and I like her proportions better. Hell, if money was no issue I'd get BOTH of 'em running! :o) But with a 10-year-old estimate of just under $500K for the 44 (and that didn't include cylinder work or "surprise" problems with the boiler), I'd estimate restoring the 712 to running order would be at least $1M if not more.

Looks like a model railroader put the superstructure on the frame backwards to me. :o)