Here is a thread dedicated to all the "CHALLENGER'S" out there! Talk about the "CHALLENGER", (or the "BIG BOY") in this wonderful thread!
My Challenger was 80 bucks off and sounds wonderful! It works great! Right outa the box and I got it pullin' 59 intermodual cars at K-10's layout! It's DCC and sound.
There's my first post! Lead on "CHALLENGER" lovers!(Or "BIG BOY" lovers!) ;D
Alex
Most beautiful Challenger ever:
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff83/Penncentral/NH20EF-3.jpg)
Hey, it had a 4-6-6-4 wheel arrangment, so in that sense the EF-3 was a Challenger. Besides, it had the same horsepower as a UP Challenger, which was interesting.
Put some side rods on it and it will look much better.
Don
Ya! ;D
Alex
Forget those over-advertized UP locomotives built in small batches for a small job. The King was the C&O H-8 2-6-6-6. The Rivarossi original and the Hornsby update are both fine models. There are also two preserved, one in Michigan and one in Maryland.
Gene
I'm with Gene, who needs a Big Boy or Challenger when you have the real king of steam locomotives, the C&O H-8.
The H-8 could have easily done the jobs of the Big Boy/Challenger, but the reverse is not true, A Big Boy could have never handled the trackage in the eastern mountains and the UP Challenger could not have done the work.
Sheldon
Sorry boys;
I think Conrail has it down right. Ask yourself this: How long did it take for that Allegheny to steam up to snuff? How much maintenence did it take? How many water stops, coal stops, etc , did it take?
That "Yellowjcaket" in the meanwhile, was hauling 100+ car float trains between Oak Point and New Haven! It was versatile! It took just a call to the Cos Cob generating plant to put the power on line for this behemoth to move-and move she did! At 4860 Horsepower, she easily handled any train the New Haven had-and the New Haven had trains! I believe it has been called the "Compact Giant". Anyway, the EF-3 could goose about 9,000HP for short times out of her electrical innards-and she was big!!
Take a look at that picture of her eastbound through Bridgeport, Ct, with that carfloat train; that loud motor/blower hum jumping out of that picture. She means business!
I will give you that the Articulateds were a sight to behold, and beautiful ladies in their own right; but do give the devil his due.
RIch
I Love electrics too but we're talking steam. I'll bow my head to an Allegheny -they are the kings- but we need some Western Maryland or Delaware and Hudson Challengers. Or how about B&O EM-1s. Or even WM Potomacs or Decapods. Potomacs for speed and Decapods for lugging.
Wade
If I'm not mistaken, diesels and electrics have their own system to identify their wheel arrangements. Afterall, who has ever called a GSW-1 an 0-4-4-0?
Gene
Quote from: Atlantic Central on January 19, 2008, 01:22:39 PM
I'm with Gene, who needs a Big Boy or Challenger when you have the real king of steam locomotives, the C&O H-8.
The H-8 could have easily done the jobs of the Big Boy/Challenger, but the reverse is not true, A Big Boy could have never handled the trackage in the eastern mountains and the UP Challenger could not have done the work.
Sheldon
Here! Here! I agree with SHeldon and Gene, 2-6-6-6 better then those over rated hunks of junk.
We do need a 2-8-8-4 though. (not the 4-8-8-2 Cabforward, thats another over rated hunk of junk eather) Need a B&O EM-1.
Hear what Athearn is doing now? SP 4-8-2 MT-4 i think. Athearn needs to go back doing like they did with thier PAcifics and Mikados, make one more then 1 railroad had.
Rich,
All that is true, and in the busy, crowded, poluted northeast corridor electrics make sense,
BUT, the fact is for the traffic density on most railroads the TOTAL operating and maintenance cost of heavy electrics and their infrastructure is WAY, WAY more than steam or diesel. All money saved because the locos are simpler, is spent on the overhead and power plants plus much more.
That is why all the rural electric routes have been abandoned.
On a similar but different topic, a recent study shows that heating homes with oil or gas is more efficient than using that same oil or gas to generate electricity and send it to those homes to run heat pumps or electric heat. The same physics are largely at work for electric railroads unless traffic is very dense. We would do well to heat, cook and bathe with oil or gas, make hydrogen to run cars and only use electricity for lighting and electronics. AND, put most all the freight on trains. Trains get more than 5 times the tons/mile/gallon of a truck.
As you well know electricity cannot be "stored" so with dense traffic like the NE, central generation works, but with lower traffic levels, matching generation to demand becomes difficuilt and there is much waste/loss.
Right there is the solution to the "oil" problem - but knowbody listens.
If we did the above, South America and the Middle East would be begging us to buy their oil.
Sheldon
Sheldon;
You are dealing with efficiency and economics. Efficiency is an easy thing to get to using logic and analysis, with some common sense thrown in. Where this whole gig runs amok is when you add politicians and big business into the fray. As long as there is an interconection between big business and government, it will always win out over the common good; and guys like us will continue to be screwed royally.
There have been a lot of people with good ideas who have been bought off and it is too bad; but that is the way it goes. Lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians: I do have my thoughts...they are not nice thoughts.
Rich
Rich,
I agree completely! That's why you have learn how to screw them back.
Sheldon
Okay, quit hijacking my thread please, if your not here to talk about the "Big Boy" or the "Challenger", please leave.
Alex
Quote from: Atlantic Central on January 20, 2008, 12:51:39 PM
Rich,
All that is true, and in the busy, crowded, poluted northeast corridor electrics make sense,
BUT, the fact is for the traffic density on most railroads the TOTAL operating and maintenance cost of heavy electrics and their infrastructure is WAY, WAY more than steam or diesel. All money saved because the locos are simpler, is spent on the overhead and power plants plus much more.
That is why all the rural electric routes have been abandoned.
Sheldon
I have to disagree with you on that one. The Milwaukee Road is really the only rural road with major portions of electrification, so I'll use that as a case study. Several studies done in the early 1970's found that for $39 million, the Milwaukee could have closed the gap between its two electrified districts and ordered new electric locomotives. Instead, it spent about the same sum buying diesel locomotives and fuel to elctrify the lines west. To add insult to injury, another study done shortly before the electrifcation was removed found that if the electrification had been maintained, exactly as it was in 1972 with no new locomotives, the savings would have amounted to $67.9 million by 1980. It would have paid for itself.
I do agree that it would not make sense for almost any line currently to take the plunge to electrify, but electric operations are in fact more effiecient than diesel operations once the catenary is in place, even on rural lines such as the Milwaukee.
Quote from: rains train on January 20, 2008, 03:33:01 PM
Okay, quit hijacking my thread please, if your not here to talk about the "Big Boy" or the "Challenger", please leave.
Alex
Okay, then. I was researching info for my post when you posted that.
Conrail Quality,
"If the catenary had been maintained" - At what cost? Catenary is expensive to install and expensive to maintain - again, traffic/tonage has to be very high to justify those expenses. The Milwaukee is a fairly unique example - I would call it neither urban or rural - but suburban, and it may well be a tie in that case.
But for the roads like the Great Northern and the Virginian, it was a money pit.
Sheldon
Rains Trains,
Nobody has hijacked your thread. Each comment is a logical progression from your initial post. All the comments merely point to the simple fact that both of those UP designs were hyped very successfully, but were not, in fact, as good as other locomotives. In steam they come in behind the 2-6-6-6, both in performance and in numbers. I'll let the electrons spin their own tales. :D
Gene
Yes, you are. Now, if your not going to talk about the "Challenger" or the "Big Boy" in a good way, then.....LEAVE
Alex
Metro North did electrify all the way to Boston about eight or so years ago, boosted the voltage to about 20KV (I have been told), and they have quite a neat system of overhead. Instead of anchor bridges, they have tensioners and counterweights every so often. One day I would like to take the train up to Boston, maybe to catch a Red Sox game or something.
None of that or anything else said here has hurt you or your writing.
Rich
Quote from: Atlantic Central on January 20, 2008, 05:02:16 PM
Conrail Quality,
"If the catenary had been maintained" - At what cost? Catenary is expensive to install and expensive to maintain - again, traffic/tonage has to be very high to justify those expenses. The Milwaukee is a fairly unique example - I would call it neither urban or rural - but suburban, and it may well be a tie in that case.
But for the roads like the Great Northern and the Virginian, it was a money pit.
Sheldon
Sheldon,
I'll agree with you about the Great Northern. But that was a case of electrify or asphixiate, so obviously GN chose the former. Still, it tells much the GN chose to use diesels as soon as possible. I've often thought it would have been better in the long run if GN had used third rail istead of catanary, since dual-modes like the FL-9 could have had the 'best of both worlds', requiring no engine change while not having to worry about venilation. That's another topic, though.
As for the Virginian, I have to disagree. While I do not have the luxury of statistics, the Virginian mangement certainly did. If the elctrification was indeed a 'money pit', then why would they spend millions on state-of-the-art electric locomotives (the E33's) in 1956, when diesels had already proven their efficiency?
I also disagree about the Milwaukee being a 'suburban' railroad. While some of their Chicago-area lines would fit this description, those were not the lines the Milwaukee electrified. They chose the lines over the Cascades and Rockies, going through mostly isolated little towns. Why do you consider it "suburban"?
Timothy
Conrail Quality
Mr. Bachmann, please delete this thread for hijacking so I can start a new one. Thanks.
Alex
Quote from: rains train on January 20, 2008, 07:54:12 PM
Mr. Bachmann, please delete this thread for hijacking so I can start a new one. Thanks.
Alex
Why should he delete the thread? You are simply ignoring the way normal human conversation works. People do not talk with one defined topic to talk about; they talk about something, which in turn leads to something else, and so on. I also notice that earlier you said: "
Now, if your not going to talk about the "Challenger" or the "Big Boy" in a good way". So you're saying that we have to only talk about one narrow topic with only one particular view point? If you're talking with someone, and the conversation drifts, do you tell everyone that they have to return to the original topic? You are just being completely unrealilistic.
Timothy
Conrail Quality
Yup, so leave.
Alex
Na, only kidding, just try to keep the "challenger" or "big boy" as the main topic. ;D
Alex
Okay. The UP Challenger and Big Boy designs were very well hyped by UP. The 4-6-6-4 design had copies on at least two other railroads. Neither, however, was superior to the C&O H-8 2-6-6-6. Any investigation at all will prove that.
Gene
Everyone has the idea of Bigger is Better, at least some point in their life, usually when they are younger. Almost every young foamer begs for a big boy, but it really isn't that amazing, and IMHO it looks rather ugly compared to smaller steam, and passenger steam.
Ya GG, you wish! ;D
Alex
(maybe it's just you :o)
gg,
Beauty is subjective so I didn't want to mention the frying pan bottom design of the C/BB smoke box fronts, or some of the other artistic goofs. The H-8, OTOH, has an almost Gothic cathedral design, functional, yet harmonious.
Gene
Oooooooh.
Alex
(lol)
While the 2-6-6-6 was a good industrial design, it flunked weighing what it was supposed to. It was well over the axle weight limit specified by both the C&O and Virginian. There was some fineling done when the locomotive was weighed.
The Challenger was the UP's idea for getting the axles split as opposed to the 4-12-2. A much more flexible engine. If some is good, then more is better so they went back to ALCO and asked for something bigger and got it. It didn't fit the turntables so the added a jack for the last axle..
The Milwaukie did their homework based on locomotives available for the 1914 period. The electis initially cut their operating costs in the divisions equipped by almost 52%. The electics were faster, required a lot less maintenance and didn't pull out couplers. The N&W and Virginain both took note of the operating economies tyhe Milwaukie had gotton. The C&O had better grades than either the N&W and Virginian and stayed with steam.
The UP wanted speed on its fast freights and the Challengers and Big Boys did that. The 2-6-6-6 slugged out the grades. But the large steamers on the uP were supplanted by Gas Turbines which were even fasterand required less maintenance. For the UP, speed was of the essence on big blocks of reefers and such.
Coal haulers aren't speed demons.
WOO! Something about the topic actually! ;D
Alex
I think a lot of Big Boy hype , is bigger is better. I mean, you don't see any people making threads about, say UP 4-6-0's. Sure it was powerful, and its monstrous, but its still an everyday steam locomotive.
As for the model aspect, there are wayy too many models... The models look good and all, but do we really need 3+ different manufacturers of Big Boys or Challengers, and few manufacturer's of pacific's and other popular steamers?
But everyone loves a big engine. :D
Alex
Japasha,
Your comments are based on how the 2-6-6-6 was used not what it was capable of, every expert on steam has said it was incorrectly used or under used by both roads - It was capable of high speeds just like a Challenger/Big Boy and had much more TE/horespower. The few times they where used in passenger service proved this.
As for electrics, this is a game of book keeping, if you shift expenses from the loco department to the track department it does show great cost savings, but over the really long hall it is simply not there. The long term maintenance on the catenary and power plants is never figured in.
As for the weight of the H-8, true it was at or above its design axle loading, but in practical application that did not prove to be a problem, in fact it added to the locos increadable TE with no reported track problems. I will admitt that the UP might have needed to upgrade some track to use them though.
Sheldon
One of the most dangerous words in the English language is "everybody." There are four people in my house right now who have no use for "big engines." In fact I much prefer the work horses, the Mikes, Consolidations, and Pacifics. My layout requires big engines, so I have big engines as well.
Japasha, I'll get back to you with facts, rather than opinions, but your last statement is pure hookey. AFAIK, every steam locomotive in contention for "fastest" burned coal. I don't know how the fuel plays into speed, as that is a factor of driver diameter, cylinder size, boiler pressure, and load. You are correct that both the Allegheny and the Blue Ridge weighed more than the advertized, but both the C&O and the Virginian had track that could handle the axle weight which improved the locomotive's ability to haul a heavy load.
BTW, you can't blame the tool for its misuse by the owner. If I shoot a squirrel for brunswick stew and use a .30'06, it's my fault, not the rifle's. Sure, I should have used a .22 long rifle, but I didn't. The C&O should have used the H-8 for fast manifest freight, but it didn't. It used it to conserve fuel getting its bread and butter - coal - to market.
Gene
Gene, The last steam locomotive to do 100 mph on the Southern was not a coal burner. It was 4449 an oil burning SP locomotive. I was on board for the ride with Graham Claytor. There was a whole trainload of witnesses as well as the staff from Trains Magazine.
For the naysayers on the electrics, go to Middleton's book "When the Steam Railroads Electified" I beleive that Middleton still lives in Charlottesville, ask him yourself as he had acces to the Milwaukie's records. What happened there was that the Electrics allowed them to merge two difficult divisions in Montana into one with no crew changes. The same for the Washington electrification. As the electrics could MU with one crew, they could cover those two diviison with one crew and no helpers. The savings paid for the cost in five years.
The 2-6-6-2 was very hard on the roadbed and track because of over weight. I agree on it's speed capability but being as overweight as it was, even the C&O knew how it tore up the tracks and operated them accordingly. Same with the Virginian whose version was even heavier on the axles.
Electrifications were done when labor was cheaper and there was no other competitor. Diesels hadn't happened yet. When they did, the run-through capability killed both steam and any electric system that needed renewal.
The cost of maintain roadbed and bridges under the weight finally made the railroads realize that they had to change. They were stuck until Diesels came.
BTW, in my opinion, the 2-6-6-4 the N&W used was a much better locomotive than the 2-6-6-6 as it was built for purpose buy the railroad which understood what it needed.
The fact that an SP oil burner went 100 MPH on Southern iron does not make coal slow. A PRR K-4 exceeded 100MPH, as did the NYC 900. C&O J-3s and the L classes hit the century mark as did Southern's PS-4s. Again, it's not the type of fuel that makes speed.
As for electrification, I'm a member of one of the Milwaukee Road groups and the de-electrification is a subject of great debate. However, I know that Milwaukee produced its own electricity and sold surplus to towns along the way. In an area with high mountains and swift rivers, hydro-electric power is cheap.
Yes, the N&W Y6 and the A were strong, powerful locomotives. So, apparently was theB&O EM-1, though I know little about it. Likewise the DM&IR Yellowstones. A glance at steamlocomotive.com will show that the Challenger and Big Boy had lots of challengers from bigger boys, depending on what is measured.
There are plenty of us here who realize that while the UP giants deserve respect, they are not the sine qua non that neophytes tend to make them.
Gene
Now, before anyone gets too posessive, this thread is a bit more than a wealth of knowledge from people who obviously -don't just remember facts of history, but experienced it. The thread starting with articulated steam and continuing with the money problems of a fallen flag torn up- i will bet 10 or 15 years before some people on here were born. If I recall, dog hair was the reason some people are even on MR BACHMANN'S HO site AND thread. OK, stick to big steam? The D&H had many challengers, soon after the UP'S prototypes. A lot like them. Ran for free, burning waste coal from the company's own coal washers.....who know's what a coal washer is?? the newest were 6 years old when they were sold for junk, and the D&H mu'd switchers just to avoid firing up challengers until enough rs 2's and 3's were built. Until the bad ol days of Guilford, the D&H was run by level headed reasonable -and sentimental? officers, and being a coal road, dropping big steam must have had big reasons. Do half of you know of the Milwaukee road? Or a New Haven FL-9? Then sit still and read, you will learn more here by accident than all the websites on the www...btw, i think the western roads didn't do third rail because of the fencing needed for livestock, maybe snow drift issues too....and btw again, South Africa's 4-8-2+2-8-4 territory was mostly all electrified, figuring the coal was best spent powering wires than fireboxes, history will prove who was right... how many of you heard of'Beyer-Garrett'? Or shoveled coal on the footplate of one pulling a mixed train? So sit still and read.......
Mhmm....
Tony;
Amen. Well put.
Rich
So does anyone actually have an HO challenger? If so, how does it run/how do you like it? :)
Alex
I have a HO Challenger. It pulls everything I put on it. My layout is 14' x 22'. It is a "L" shaped 2 looped main with a engine facility and Wharf area. I have a 2% grade in one area. This is 1 of 2 ALL Metal engines I have. It was a great investment! Lionel should be proud!
hotrainlover
Yay! Some good things about the challenger! ;D
Alex
Alx,
Nobody is trying to put down the UP big steamers. But they are not the sina qua non, as I've said before. I'm sure all of us are happy that you are happy with your new locomotive and I'm sure that I'm only one of several happy to see a young person enjoying steam. But it is one of several equals:
N&W A & Y6b
DM&IR Yellowstone
B&O EM-1
C&O H-8
Gene
I have two Challengers, one is the old rivarossi D&H, a pretty close copy at arm's length, it must be 25-30 years old, I did a bit of customizing, it runs and looks great. I also have the Lionel challenger, +/-3? years ago? 'cause I like quantum sound and DC, It will pull every car you hook behind it, up a 2% grade too. It is one of my favorites going uphill from one level to the other, no helpers required, and sounds awesome, real articulate at work, echoes in the corners of the layout...alot of work and changes to make into a D&H, but nothing but good reports about both...I saw an Athearn, but it was in dcc, and the shop didn't have a track to test it on, but sitting there on DC the pumps and simmering seemed as good as my Lionel....none are a rip off that's for sure...
Challengers are were really good engines. (Note: I DID NOT say that they were the best)
Alex
I have an aAthern Challenger with DCC and sound . The whistle is fantastic as it comes from behind some buildings and the steam chuff as it picks up speed is also as realistic as it can get with a model. You cannot buy a Challenger and add you own DCC and sound for the pric I paid.
Don
Same here, especially since the place I bought it from knocked 80 dollars off! ;D (K-10's Model Trains)
Alex
Quote from: rains train on January 27, 2008, 11:09:51 AM
Same here, especially since the place I bought it from knocked 80 dollars off! ;D (K-10's Model Trains)
Alex
Don't get all excited by the fact he knocked 80 beans off it. I guarantee he still made that much in profit......lol.
Look at MicroMark.....they take a Bachmann loco that retails at 275 or more and sell em off at 99 bucks. And yes, they still make a profit even at that price.
Just goes to show you how much of a mark-up in price there is in the hobby world. (Trains aren't the only hobby where this happens).
Sid
The local hobby shop has a markup of 40% on most idems. However some things are on 30%. Out of that they pay shipping. Then there is also the cost of running the store and paying the help.
Quote from: WoundedBear on January 27, 2008, 11:35:17 AM
Quote from: rains train on January 27, 2008, 11:09:51 AM
Same here, especially since the place I bought it from knocked 80 dollars off! ;D (K-10's Model Trains)
Alex
Don't get all excited by the fact he knocked 80 beans off it. I guarantee he still made that much in profit......lol.
Look at MicroMark.....they take a Bachmann loco that retails at 275 or more and sell em off at 99 bucks. And yes, they still make a profit even at that price.
Just goes to show you how much of a mark-up in price there is in the hobby world. (Trains aren't the only hobby where this happens).
Sid
I bet he did, but I also traded a 140 dollar switcher for it too. so, actually 220 dollars off a 300 dollar engine.
Anyways, I am sure he made his profit, but Ken is really awsome.
I'm going to get a video of my HO challenger up soon....I have one, just with the sound off.
Alex~The not-so new, newbie
I personally do not care who has what on their layout, because it is not mine. I might look at things like workmanship and plausibility if I am trying to assess somebody's talent level-which to me is akin to playing God.
If you like that articulated, then you should enjoy it. If I were to assess the plausibility of the articulateds I have on my layout, I would wrinkle up my probiscus at their existence there; however, they do exist there, I like them, enjoy watching them run.
If I were to project a thought on what is virtually real here, I would have to go with the thought that not enough medium to light engines are on the market scene; However, a layout can often become an abstraction if a mental image that nonetheless will give its owner satisfaction, and joy; and isn't that what this is all about anyway? Case in point would be Sellios's layout. it is a bit too grimey and depression-ish" to suit me, but it makes George happy, so there you go. It is, after all, his moolah.
In terms of proliferation, I do agree that there are way too many large engines produced; however-again-it is what the market demands dictate, and if I were a manufacturer, I would be keeping a keen eye afixed on just that.
It is, after all, an imperfect world.
Rich
An inperfect world, right you are. I think that there are a good amount of large engines produced, and I love large engines. The 4-8-8-4, 4-6-6-4, 4-6-6-6, 2-6-6-2, 2-8-8-8-, and so on...In my opinion they are greeeat! ;D
Alex~The not-so new, newbie
To my knowledge there never was a 4-6-6-6 erected. AFAIK, the only steam locomotive with a three axle trailing truck actually built was the 2-6-6-6. There were plans - or at least a conception drawing for a 4-8-6, but it never was built.
In any event, articulateds were moutain engines. While you sometimes saw them on flat land, they were either heading to or coming from a place with hills.
Gene
Oh, sorry Gene..I meant 2-6-6-6, thanks for telling me ;D
Alex~The not-so new, newbie
OTOH, I just discovered that there was a MODEL 4-6-6-6, the "Super Allegheny" which Armstrong had - I guess it was a kitbash or scratchbuilt. See this month's Model Railroader.
Gene
Oh? Cool!
Alex~The not-so new, newbie