Dd-

You make a good point about tank locomotives being used on smaller lumbering railroads. They would probably provide good service for many logging set ups. Maybe not for really big logging outfits, however.

Those organizations frequently hauled very heavy loads (the same is true for mining operations) and I'm not so sure that a 2-6-2 would be up to the demands, tank or not. The loads, grades and curves are the reasons that logging and mining operations used geared locomotives and articulated locomotives (small ones like 2-4-4-2 and 2-6-6-2, tanks or tenders) so often. They needed the brute strength of those other locos. Geared locomotives were capable of everything a 2-6-2 could do except run fast. But fast wasn't an issue on pikes where fast meant 15 or (downhill with a major tailwind and possibly an earthquake) 20 mph.

2-6-2s were unlucky in many ways. They were excellent general duty locomotives but they were developed at the point that the railroads began to look at seriously big trains and seriously big motive power. The result was that the number of 2-6-2s built is quite low, considering their versatility.

2-6-2s have always been a weakness for me so I like your speculation about using them on smaller logging lines.

                                                                                                                                -- D

There is a brass 2-6-2T on eBay tonight. NWSL. Logger with spark arrestor stack (NOT baloon or funnel).

sign me up for a couple commuter engines like a 4-6-6t or 4-6-4t I always wanted an inter-city steam commuter train