should i get the baldwin 2-8-0 or the 2-8-4 berkshire?

[sedfred]

i just started HO modelling last year and have 5 locomotives, a usra 0-6-0, union pacific 4-8-4 ( from the overland limited set) an f9, a spectrum 4-4-0, and an athearn sw1500. i want to start getting bigger locomotives but i can't decide on the 2-8-0 or 2-8-4. what are the pros and cons of each? does anyone have personal experience with one or the other? which is better overall?

[RAM]

Well it is up to you.  I thing the 2-8-0 is a better choice.  You can use it in the yard, in local service, or as a road locomotive.  The 2-8-4 is a nice locomotive, but it can only be used as a road locomotive.

[Hunt]

The 2-8-4 Berkshire needs 22" radius curves,  greater better.

[Trainman203]

Smaller engines look better on small layouts and service wise are more versatile.  Go with the 2-8-0.  You can pull any kind of train with it and it can be a switcher too.  I have 7 of them, 3 in regular service right now.  My railroad runs on 2-8-0s, 2-10-0s, 4-6-0s and 4-4-0's.  I have several 2-8-2s, 2-10-2s , 4-6-2's and 4-8-2s and never run them at home, they are just too big, they are for the club layout.

[rogertra]

I agree with the majority, the 2-8-0 is a way better choice for a smaller model railroad.

Like Trainman203 I have several of the 2-8-0s, they are my largest class of engine.  I also have 2-6-0s, 4-6-0s, 4-6-2s which are also good choices for smaller model railroads.

However, I also have 2-8-2s, 4-8-2s, both light and heavy and 2-10-2s and a variety of first generation B-B diesels.

But then again, I am fortunate enough I have space for a 10 x 33 foot model railroad with 40" minimum radius mainline curves plus, eventually, stacked staging yards in another room, so I have the mainline run and the curves to run the larger power.  If you have 24" or less radius, I suggest you stick to 4-6-2s and smaller and B-B trucked diesels, they'll not only look much better I think you'll also be much happier with the choice.

Cheers

Roger T.

[sedfred]

thanks. I will go with the 2-8-0, but I am tempted by engines like the spectrum em-1 and the 2-8-4. I will save bigger ones for when I have a larger layout.

[Trainman203]

You need a "really big" layout for a "really big" engine like the em-1.  Big stuff in general , and lots of crowded structures also, make a small layout  look even smaller. My layout is 16" wide x 50' long.  I have 8 buildings on the whole thing and don't plan on any more. I'm reluctant to run more than 1 or 2 50'-long cars at once, they eat up space too.  I run one of my 2-8-2s every now and then and they look elephantine so I usually take them off after one or two runs.

[MilwaukeeRoadfan261]

I personally have 2 2-8-0 steam engines and 1 2-8-4 steam engine. All three are Bachmann made engines and I would say in terms of pulling power the 2-8-0 is almost as strong as the 2-8-4 however if you went with a 2-8-4 I can verify that there is plenty of room inside the boiler shell to add a couple more ounces worth of weight, while you can't do that with the 2-8-0. But if you are looking for one that will look good on a smaller layout, the 2-8-0 is the engine to go with.

[rogertra]

Some people are saying you need a big layout for big engines.

That's not strictly true.  What you do need for big engines are large radius curves and switches that are at least number sixes.

Anything much larger than 2-8-0 or the Russian 2-10-0 frankly look really odd dashing around 24 inch or less radius curves at near warp speed.  In fact, anything looks odd dashing around a model railroad at near warp speed.   

For engines much above the aforementioned 2-8-0 and 2-10-0 and yes, let's add 4-6-2s, the best curves are those above 30 inches at a minimum and 36 inches is better.  Remember, to get curves of that radius you do not need a "large" model railroad.  You can have curve of 30 inches plus on a simple point to point, say around three walls of a bedroom.  Staging yard on one wall, through station on another, to a terminal on the third.  If you can span the doorway with a bridge of some kind, then you could go around the walls and have through staging.

When I lived in an apartment, that's what I had, a single track secondary main line going around the walls of the second bedroom, with 30+ inch radius curves with three "stations" and a through staging yard.  At the time, I modelled 1972 so I ran various first and second generation B-B units, GP7s, GP9s, GP35s, F7As, GP38s, FA-1s, FA-2s  but I avoided C-C trucked units like SD40s as they would not have looked "right" on 30 inch curves, nor on a secondary line.  Building around the walls left space under the railroad available for a desk, my workbench, file cabinets etc., and a sofa bed for guests. 

If I had built the railroad in the later days when Spectrum steam came out, I would have set the railway, as I have done now, in 1958 and ran 2-6-0s, 4-6-0s, 2-8-0s, Russian 2-10-0s, and other manufacturers 4-6-2s and 2-8-2s and possibly the light 4-8-2 as I think they would have looked more realistic.

Notice I haven't mentioned a 4 x 8?  Personally, that's because I think the 4 x 8 is not a good choice as it takes up way too much room.  It takes up too much room as it must be placed away from the walls by at least two feet so as to gain all around access.  In effect, a 4 x 8 requires an area of 8 feet x 12 feet so why not build around the walls of an 8 x 12 foot room leaving a 4 x 8 space in the middle?  You end up with a bigger and better model railroad.

Anyway, that's my thoughts, yours of course may vary. 

Cheers

Roger T.

[electrical whiz kid]

Good thoughts from all-quite an impressive collection of thought!  I have large power, and on the present layout I am building, which is approx. 20'X12', quite frankly, these engines are much too large for what I have in mind.
A good example of a well-balanced layout, with geography and big motive power, would be Tony Koester's layout.  Tony runs 2-8-4s for example-and they look really good pulling long freights across long runs of track.  To me, those Berkshires just won't look as good on my layout as a more diminutive roster; 2-8-0s, 2-8-2s, 2-6-0s, 2-6-2s, etc.
Whether Tony is fortunate enough to have that much available space is, I think, a matter of taste.  For me, what I will have will suit me fine.  Remember, the bigger the layout, the more work it takes to get you happy..
SGT C.

[MilwaukeeRoadfan261]

i just started HO modelling last year and have 5 locomotives, a usra 0-6-0, union pacific 4-8-4 ( from the overland limited set) an f9, a spectrum 4-4-0, and an athearn sw1500. i want to start getting bigger locomotives but i can't decide on the 2-8-0 or 2-8-4. what are the pros and cons of each? does anyone have personal experience with one or the other? which is better overall?

Another option is the upcoming USRA Light 2-8-2 Mikado or if you can find them still, the USRA Light 2-10-2. I have a USRA Light 2-10-2 in DMIR and when I get a layout up and runny, I plan on using the 2-10-2 on slow moving freight runs (as the DMIR never ran theirs at more than 35 MPH anyway because of track speed limits as the speed limit on the DMIR main was only 35 MPH to begin with and the DMIR USRA 2-10-2's had a problem of shaking themselves to pieces if they went faster than 35 MPH) that would involve a bit of switching as some railroads used larger engines for switching (For example 2-8-8-2 articulated locomotives on the DMIR moving ore cars around the ore docks) after diesels became the main motive power on main line passenger trains and the larger (and newer) steam engines (for example 4-8-4's, 4-8-2's, and 2-8-4's) were moved to freight service and the engines that used to run the freight trains (like the USRA 2-10-2's) were moved to local freight (for this example the 2-10-2, which would have handled by for example a 2-8-2) and yard duties (again for this example the 2-8-2 to replace the smaller switchers like the USRA 0-8-0). So a 2-8-2 and 2-10-2 would also look good among a fleet of smaller sized locomotives.

[Irbricksceo]

The 2-8-0 will run easily on 18 inch, the 2-8-4 should get 22 however it CAN be used on 18, just expect it to jump the track sometimes. I personally have a 2-8-4 and it is a nice locomotive, however on a small layout it does take up more space than you might want it to, that said, I have a 4*8 with a double tracked main (18 inner, 22 outer) and I use both. the 2-8-4 usually runs the outer but it can be brought to the inner, even if I only do so to bring it into the yard.

You may have noticed a lot of arguments for very large radii. It is absolutely true that these models look better on large curves, and the 2-8-4 looks kind of silly on 18, but that does not mean you NEED large radii. Not everyone can fit 28,34, 40, ect.

What you should use is what you like. the 2-8-0 is a very nice looking engine, as is the 2-8-4. I'd probably recommend the 2-8-0 because it has more uses and looks nicer on curves however I do love the 2-8-4. Biggest issue I take with the 2-8-0 is that i lacks a backup light which it should have if used in yard service (plus I like em)

[Trainman203]

The trouble with running all these big engines on the sharpest curves they can possibly take is that , yes, while they can run on such a tortured course, they just plain look silly hanging over the outside rail at the pilot and cab, with the drawbar used at the furthest out hole to keep the cab from hitting the tender, putting it 8 or more scale feet away from the cab when the protoypical  spacing was only 3 or 4 feet.

It all comes down to what compromises you are willing to make in a quest for realism, if you have such a quest.  I am cursed with having a strong need to be realistic as possible.  Truthfully, trains were  in some ways more fun before I contracted the affliction.

My sharpest curve is 26" R and I hate it, I want it to be 40, even though a 2-8-0 is the biggest thing that ever regularly runs on my road.

[Trainman203]

Milwaukee, when you study railroad and steam locomotive history, you see that until  "super-power" engines (4 wheel trailing truck supporting a big firebox that could keep the engine supplied with steam at high speeds) were developed by Lima in 1924, freights powered by 2-8-2s and 2-10-2s just never ran above 35 MPH much.  It was highway competition and customer schedule demands that created high speed freight engines.  Of course they were  too late, the embryonic diesel  was already present by then.  Superpower combined with the depression and WW II probably extended steam power's life by 10 years ..... long enough for me to see it, yee-haw!!!!!!

[MilwaukeeRoadfan261]

Milwaukee, when you study railroad and steam locomotive history, you see that until  "super-power" engines (4 wheel trailing truck supporting a big firebox that could keep the engine supplied with steam at high speeds) were developed by Lima in 1924, freights powered by 2-8-2s and 2-10-2s just never ran above 35 MPH much.  It was highway competition and customer schedule demands that created high speed freight engines.  Of course they were  too late, the embryonic diesel  was already present by then.  Superpower combined with the depression and WW II probably extended steam power's life by 10 years ..... long enough for me to see it, yee-haw!!!!!!

I know. I was just using the DMIR as an example since it was a local-ish roadname for me as I live in Minnesota (other than the Milwaukee Road, Northern Pacific, Great Northern, CB&Q, Rock Island, C&NW, CMStP&O, and many others) and the various wheels arrangements I listed as random, yet realistic, examples of what happened with steam after diesels took over the main freight and passenger trains in as short an explanation as possible without making it sound overly complicated. I of coarse left out examples of High Speed Freight engines like the Challengers and Big Boys (which were both designed to work nearly mile long frieght trains at around 50 MPH over Sherman Hill or up to 70 MPH on level, wide open main line), however the Big Boys were exclusive to the Union Pacific while the Challengers, like most wheel arrangements that were used here in the US such as the Northern Pacific, SP&S, Great Northern (as they had purchased two challengers from the SP&S but sold them back to the SP&S a few years later), the Rio Grande, and Clinchfield in addition to the Union Pacific, not all railroads used them in fast freight as on the Clinchfield they were used for the heavy coal and heavy freight trains in that area. And I can see local freight trains running at around 35 to 40 MPH on the major Class 1 railroads, but the DMIR being an ore hauling railroad it used 35 MPH speed limits for safer running and shorter stopping distance just in case, and the speed limit extended to passenger trains on the line as well.