Alco 2-6-0

[Pacific Northern]

I have read a number of postings on various web sites regarding this new locomoitive. A few of these postings have indicated that a number of owners are not satisfied with the speed of this engine. They relate to the slow speed operation of the locomoitve and indicate that on many of these engines right out of the box the speed is to fast to use for switching and that many have had to change CV's in order to obtain adequate performance.

I have a few of these engines, with and without sound. On the DCC ready units I installed Digitrax DH163PS decoders. My controller is Digitrax.

I have great slow speed control on both the sound and DCC ready versions that I have added decoders to.

I have not changed any CV's, other than address changes, everything is right out of the box.

Is it possible that this engine does not run well on certain DCC or DC controllers?

I have also checked performance on DC only with an old MRC DC controller, a 510 unit.

[rogertra]

I changed some sound CV's that did not seem right but I don't have my notes right now.  One big thing was that the bell ring timing was too fast to be a realistic rope pull bell which that engine would have had.  Also, it needed to be a little louder if I remember right.  And the chuff timing needed improvement.  I'll get my notes and report on the better CV values next week.  I'm a sound nit picker and what makes everyone else mostly happy won't completely suit me.  Fortunately the CV's are there to fix things.

PF

\\

Not always, it could have an air ringer as there's no attachment on the bell hanger casting for a rope.  :-)

By the 1940s on a class one road, would would expect it to have an air ringer.

[Pacific Northern]

I wish Bachmann had been a bit more observant by not hiding the screw that holds the tender body to the frame.

Snap fit lugs on the back of the tender are great but the hidden screw on the front.

I sure do like the holder for the wiring on the 2-6-0. Wish the spectrum models had the same setup rather than having to fiddle and trial and error with the position of the wiring.

[rogertra]

A Class I road would have had very few engines like this by the 1940's.  This was basically a short line engine by then.  

I don't know where the Bach man got the idea that engines like this ran 70 MPH on passenger runs.  Those short little drivers ......man .... I doubt it.

And the oversize bell casting does not have an air ringer cylinder anyway.

PF

Canada National and Canadian Pacific had quite a few 2-6-0s into the mid to late 1950s.    (Edited to change 1960s to 1950s)

The CPR had three 4-4-0s in service until the end of steam.

You can't tar every road with the same brush.

[ebtnut]

Even the Wabash had a few old Moguls that ran into the 1950's on a line with bridge restrictions.  And I believe that the SP had some heavy Moguls that survived pretty late as well.  FWIW, one of the very last steam locos in regular commercial service into the 1960's was a small Mogul.

[Pacific Northern]

Strange that it was the small steamers that were still in service as steam engines were being replaced.

CN and CPR used a number of 4-6-0's during the phase out period as well. In a number of provinces the last steam engines ran was a 4-6-0,  and a few 2-6-0's.

[ryeguyisme]

remember diesels were still a new thing, railroads needed to install diesel fuel pumps here and there to fuel these engines and steam already had their facilities along the lines. So they started with the road engines and worked their way down to peddler's I'd assume, that's why you saw engines like moguls still working past their larger brethren.  It would also explain why tourists steam is primarily smaller engines as well not big chunky road engines although I wish there were more like the B&LE 2-10-4 that's collecting rust with age

[rogertra]

The main reason behind smaller and old engine surviving to the end and the much earlier demise of the larger and much more powerful locomotives is quite simple and straight forward economics.

The premier passenger trains were the first to be dieselised.  Result?  The premier passenger engines were bumped down to lesser services, commuters for example, or retired.

Next came the premier freight services.  Result?  The premier fright locomotives were possibly bumped down to lesser services but because they cost so much to run, they were retired.  There go the giants.

Next came the secondary freight services.  Result, the 2-8-2s, 2-8-0s etc., etc., and the previously bumped surviving premier freight engines were retired.

Finally, the lowly branch service engines, the 4-6-0s and 2-6-0s went to meet their reward in the scrap yard in the sky.

And that's why, typically, the older and smaller power outlasted the giants.

[ebtnut]

Roger has it about right.  Other factors that determined survival included track and/or bridge restrictions that wouldn't even handle first-generation diesels; marginal operations (like the Rio Grande's narrow gauge lines) that just didn't warrant the investment in wide-gauging and/or dieselization; that little Mogul on the Mobile and Gulf I referred to earlier is in this category.  Short line operations that didn't warrant buying new diesels for the work involved.  That last item is where a lot of preserved steam came from - for instance, Southern's 4501 from the Kentucky and Tennesee and 630 and 722 that come from the Tweetsie. 

[jward]

actually, a close look at production rosters of diesel locomotives reveals that passenger and yard steamers were among the first replaced. road and local freight operations were usually last. some exceptions do exist, but for the most part, emd and alco were building gp9s and rs3/rs11s in huge numbers by the late 1950s, and very few switchers. only a select few lines bought passenger locomotioves after 1953.

the reasons were simple: diesel passenger locomotives eliminated the need for water stops, and could be turned around in a short time, ready for use on the next train. in the yards, diesel switchers could be used by successive yard crews with only an occasional stop for fuel. these factors allowed steam to be replaced by about half as many diesels with a significant savings in maintainance costs.

by the time the road freights got dieselized, railroads were ready to standardize with massive amounts of identical locomotives. this allowed some lines to bump older, oddball road diesels into the local freight jobs where they could stay close to maintainance facilities.

also, used steam dirt cheap, some smaaller lines were able to get great deals on used steamers that fit their needs. these roads used the steamers until the first diesels started to be cast off by the larger roads, when they got to dieselize for little more than scrap value of the locomotives.

the following site shows production rosters of various diesels, by builder and model.
http://www.thedieselshop.us/INDEXBLDR.html