2-6-2 Prairie

[Pacific Northern]

I have been looking around for a ATSF 2-6-2 locomotive. There is nothing available other than brass locomotives.

I did find the Bachmann 2-6-2 locomotives but they are not based on any real locomotive. Where the Bachmann 2-6-2 engine is simply a 0-6-0 with added pony truck and a trailing truck.

The real 2-6-2 locomotives were not small engines, they were the forerunners of the 4-6-2's.

If Bachmann brings out a 2-6-2 in the future I certainly hope it will not be their forthcoming 2-6-0 mogul will an added trailing truck.

I finally solved my locomotive shortage with acquiring a couple of brass 2-6-2's as well as 4-6-2's. The uncanny resemblance between the locomotives is very family like and to be expected. For now I am running these on DC, in the near future I will change out the open frame motor that came in a couple and add can motors and DCC, perhaps even sound as well.

[on30gn15]

May be nothing around now but several decades back, like the 60s and 70s, an actual, more-or-less ATSF 2-6-2 was produced as a diecast metal and styrene kit by Model Die Casting Roundhouse. Kit was available in to the 80s.

Prairie 2-6-2

   440 ATSF Prairie 2-6-2 - Undecorated.
   441 ATSF Prairie 2-6-2 - Lettered for ATSF.
   441 ATSF Prairie 2-6-2 - Apparently also lettered for ATSF and numbered 1010.
   This utilized their Atlantic superstructure with new mechanism. While the model has 63 inch diameter drivers, all but two of the Santa Fe prototypes (nos. 564 and 565) had 69 inch ones. The model is said to have a 33 inch wheel trailing truck, while the prototype had a 40 inch one.
       [Model photo, courtesy Wm.K. Walthers. Kit no. 440.]
       [Model photo, courtesy Wm.K. Walthers. Kit no. 447. (Notice how undersized the trailing truck wheel looks.)]

http://railroad.union.rpi.edu/article.php?article=2604

Ask in this Yahoo Goup, someone may know where some would be some available
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mdcroundhouse/

(now, where the quote says about shared boilers, was done in real life: not sure about ATSF prairie but look up PRR E6, H8, G5; and K4 and M1 and a couple others)

[Doneldon]

PacNo-

The various brass Santa Fe Prairies sell for pretty hefty prices reflecting, I think, a significant demand for these versatile locomotives. I'm not sure why no one offers a decent, affordable 2-6-2 these days. It seems to me that the investment in tooling would be well rewarded. Of course no one ever asks me about such things.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          -- D

[rogertra]

PacNo-

The various brass Santa Fe Prairies sell for pretty hefty prices reflecting, I think, a significant demand for these versatile locomotives. I'm not sure why no one offers a decent, affordable 2-6-2 these days. It seems to me that the investment in tooling would be well rewarded. Of course no one ever asks me about such things.
                     -- D

Simple.  Because the 2-6-2 wheel arrangement was not that popular in North America, Sante Fe and a couple of other roads excepted.  Logging roads don't count as they are not common carriers and were, in most cases, simply industrial lines.

[on30gn15]

Got curious as to what could be found.

They were planned to be used on the mid-western prairies. However, they did not find favor with the Class I railroads. Only 1500 Prairies were built with many of them destined for short lines.

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/prairie/

Tha major problem with the 2-6-2 as with the 2-10-2 is that these engines have a symmetrical layout, wherein the 'centre of gravity' is almost over the center driving wheel. The reciprocation rods, when working near the center of gravity, induce severe 'side to side' nosing, which if can't be restrained either by a long wheelbase or by the leading and trailing trucks results in 'severe instability'. Though some engines had the connecting rod aligned onto the third driver (like the Chicago and Great Western of 1903) most examples were powered via the second driver, hence the nosing problems remained with the type.(Swengel, p. 79.) In the USA, over 1,000 examples existed of which 100 were high wheeled engines; larger than 69 inches (1.8 m). The Lake Shore & Michigan Southern operated 80-inch (2.0 m) drivers but this did not overcome their inherent instability. The class was not suited to passenger workings because of the nosing problems. (Swengel, p. 80.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-6-2

However, the 2-6-2 Prairie Type was never as successful or reliable as the Mogul, and faced many of the same instability problems as the 2-10-2 Santa Fe type encountered. Due to imbalancing (which not only caused wear on the locomotive but also the track) and slow track speeds by the 1920s many railroads began to dislike the 2-10-2. Still, many railroads wound up owning the model (around 2,200 were eventually constructed) and the United States Railroad Administration, during takeover of the nation's railroads during World War I, used many light and heavy versions of the Santa Fe Type. Interesting, just as the 2-10-2 wheel arrangement was named for the Santa Fe Railway it also went on to own the most 2-6-2s. Even though both locomotives had significant drawbacks apparently the ATSF found them satisfactory enough to be used in daily service.

http://www.american-rails.com/prairie-type.html

[Doneldon]

On30-

Thanx for the excellent information. I still love Prairies, even if they were
inherently unstable. My wife says the same about me and I'm still lovable!

                                                                                    -- D

[Pacific Northern]

PacNo-

The various brass Santa Fe Prairies sell for pretty hefty prices reflecting, I think, a significant demand for these versatile locomotives. I'm not sure why no one offers a decent, affordable 2-6-2 these days. It seems to me that the investment in tooling would be well rewarded. Of course no one ever asks me about such things.
                     -- D

Simple.  Because the 2-6-2 wheel arrangement was not that popular in North America, Sante Fe and a couple of other roads excepted.  Logging roads don't count as they are not common carriers and were, in most cases, simply industrial lines.

The 2-6-2 may have not been popular with all of the class 1 railroads however they did find acceptance with the following Railroads
Chicago, Burlington Quincy
Great Northern
Santa Fe
Illinois Central
Milwaukee
Northern Pacific
Wabash

[rogertra]

PacNo-

The various brass Santa Fe Prairies sell for pretty hefty prices reflecting, I think, a significant demand for these versatile locomotives. I'm not sure why no one offers a decent, affordable 2-6-2 these days. It seems to me that the investment in tooling would be well rewarded. Of course no one ever asks me about such things.
                     -- D

Simple.  Because the 2-6-2 wheel arrangement was not that popular in North America, Sante Fe and a couple of other roads excepted.  Logging roads don't count as they are not common carriers and were, in most cases, simply industrial lines.

The 2-6-2 may have not been popular with all of the class 1 railroads however they did find acceptance with the following Railroads
Chicago, Burlington Quincy
Great Northern
Santa Fe
Illinois Central
Milwaukee
Northern Pacific
Wabash

Hmmm, seven roads out of how many all told?  In 1939 there were 132 class one railroads in the USA and in 1958 about 113 and only seven had 2-6-2s?  Not very good odds for one being manufactured.  :-)

[on30gn15]

In 1939 there were 132 class one railroads in the USA and in 1958 about 113 and only seven had 2-6-2s?  Not very good odds for one being manufactured.  :-)

I dunno, how many roads had PRR K-4?

Two of which I know, PRR, lumping together its affiliates, and also the N&W.
Well, come to think of it, N&W might have gotten K-3 instead of K-4 - book which says is buried in box in closet.

[Pacific Northern]

PacNo-

The various brass Santa Fe Prairies sell for pretty hefty prices reflecting, I think, a significant demand for these versatile locomotives. I'm not sure why no one offers a decent, affordable 2-6-2 these days. It seems to me that the investment in tooling would be well rewarded. Of course no one ever asks me about such things.
                     -- D

Simple.  Because the 2-6-2 wheel arrangement was not that popular in North America, Sante Fe and a couple of other roads excepted.  Logging roads don't count as they are not common carriers and were, in most cases, simply industrial lines.

The 2-6-2 may have not been popular with all of the class 1 railroads however they did find acceptance with the following Railroads
Chicago, Burlington Quincy
Great Northern
Santa Fe
Illinois Central
Milwaukee
Northern Pacific
Wabash

Remember that 1,500 were still produced.

[Doneldon]

Roger-

Except possibly the Wabash, six of the railroads you cited as having 2-6-2s are among the elite of the Class Ones.

                                                                                                                       -- D

[rogertra]

Roger-

Except possibly the Wabash, six of the railroads you cited as having 2-6-2s are among the elite of the Class Ones.                                                                                                                -- D

I didn't cite any users of the 2-6-2 other than mentioning the Santa Fe as a rare exception to the rule.

I'm not a fan of the 2-6-2 as, apart from the UK's LNER class V2 2-6-2 is was not a very successful design, being quickly superseded by the 4-6-0.   However, hundreds, if not thousands of 2-6-2Ts were built in the UK and the 2-6-2T was a very successful passenger design due to its ability to run bunker first at high speeds, in the 60 to 70 MPH range when in passenger service. But in general, as a tender engine, the 2-6-2 was not a successful design.

And again, only seven out of between 113 and 132 class one roads, depending on the year, had 2-6-2s, which speaks volumes.  Yes, many more short lines and logging roads did use the 2-6-2 which explains why some 1500, as claimed, were built.

But if you like 2-6-2s, more power to you.