Spectrum 2-6-2 'Prarrie' Wanted

[Len]

Will someone at Bachmann please look into making a Spectrum quality 'Prarrie' 2-6-2 for those of us in the 4x8 layout crowd?

All that's really available these days is that outdated, "Toys-R-Us" quality, "smoking & lighted" travesty on wheels in a Backmann box that calls itself a 2-6-2.

Len

[rogertra]

As has been discussed here before, rather than a "Prarrie'" (sic) a 2-6-0 would be a much better choice.

The "Prairie" was not a popular wheel arrangement with the vast majority of railways thoughout the world.  I was useful as a tank engine.  The trailing truck was great for guiding the driving wheels while running in reverse, which a tank engine will be doing much of the time,  and for carrying the weight of the coal bunker.

As a tender loco the 2-6-2's trailing truck took weight from the driving wheels that could more usefully be used for traction, while not really permitting any worthwhile increase in firebox size over a 2-6-0.

Railways in need of an engine larger and more powerful than a 2-6-0 would rather opt for a 4-6-0 which permitted a larger boiler, larger firebox and put more weight onto the driving axles, thus improving traction.  The improvement in traction would be most noticable at start-up when a locomotive "sets back" onto its suspension and places more weight on the rear driving axles than the front.  Just like your vehicle does. 

If the loco has a trailing truck, like the 2-6-2 and even the 4-6-2, then some of this "set back" weight is taken up by the truck and not by the rear drivers, which explains why 4-6-0s are less prone to wheel slip than either the 2-6-2 or even the 4-6-2.

So, the vote should be for a 2-6-0 as we already have two 4-6-0s from Spectrum, even if they do need to issue a "modernised" (Suitable for the 1940s and 1950s) version of the 4-6-0.

[japasha]

The Prarie was very popular with shortlines and logging companies that wanted to use rod locomotives on their longer runs to the mills. Long Bell comes to mind. Almost all of these locomotives for the short lines were straight from the Baldwin or Alco catalogs. Quite a few are still in existance. 

The present 2-6-2 was made from a USRA model which in itself is pretty good considering I can get one for under $50 with Walsheart's valve gear. Painted it is rather nice, no NMRA contest model but a reasonable runner. I have a pair of PFM Long Bell 2-6-2s and they are nice, small runners ideal for 18" radius and all.


2-6-2s were made in many gauges besides standard. They were really intended for light work and tight radius. The large Santa Fe Praries were the exception rather than the rule. The Southern Pacific only built two to the Harriamn standard before just going to Pacifics.

[Len]

Roger,

I already have enough IHC 2-6-0's that I've 'super detailed' over the years. What I would like is some decent 2-6-2's for my layout.

Len

[rogertra]

Len.

If you have enough 2-6-0s, then go for a 4-6-0 or two, much more useful than a 2-6-2.  A 2-6-2 is no improvement, prototypically, over a 2-6-0.

As for being popular with logging roads that because many logging 2-6-2 soent half their time running in reverse where the trailing truck becomes a leading truck and helps guide the driving wheels through the very rough trackage on a logging road.

However, on mainline, class one, real railways, the 2-6-2 was not a popular wheel arrangement anywhere in the world.

In the UK, other than 2-6-2T engines which were really popular, there was only one successful 2-6-2 tender engine, the LNER's V2 class which could pull and run with the best of them.  The others, like 2-6-2 tender engines the world over, were duds once the 4-6-0 and 4-6-2s came along.

[paulsafety]

How about this for an interesting 2-6-2?


If I had the option, I'd rather see these PRR 2-6-0's

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr4010.jpg
OR
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr267s.jpg

Paul F.

[r.cprmier]

On a 2-6-2, wouldn't the rear wheels support a larger firebox?  I would think so; and if that is so, then wouldn't the weight of the firebox assembly counter the loss of traction on startup, not giving the rear wheels a chance to slip because they were supporting the weight mentioned.

I don't remember offhand who produced the present 2-6-2, but to me it is a poor excuse for a road engine, which a 2-6-2 was intended to be.  It looks too much like an 0-6-0 switcher without the slopeback tender, to which some klod added the wheels.  Hell, let's just put a set of buckeye trucks under the tender-ANYTHING might improve it's lot...

Now...Off to watch the PATs.

RIch

[SteamGene]

Rich,
If you look, the Bachmann Standard 2-6-0 and 2-6-2 are both the USRA 0-6-0 with extra wheels added.  First clue - count the sand domes. 
While I sort of have to use big steam, I really think that the vast majority of modelers would be happier and have a better layout with small steam - and small diesels.  Even the Chesapeake Bay and Western, with it's 17 scale miles of mainline track, one way, and most of it is double track, is about 1/2 the length of the East Broadtop. 
The fact is, that small steam lasted until the end of steam.  The last revenue steamer in Virginia on the C&O was not an H-8, J-3, K-4, or T-1, but a rather ancient K-3 Mikado.  Four years earlier they were sending G-9 Consolidations to Korea - one of which might have been past over me at the 2nd Infantry Division checkpoint on a cold winter day in 67-68, causing the driver to probably think that "The LT has gone nuts!"
Gene

[rogertra]

Len.

Yes, the trailing wheels did permit a slightly larger firebox but it was not much of an improvement over a 2-6-0.

And no, the weight of the firebox would not off set the "set back" on starting as the set back weight, plus the weight of the firebox, would bear down onto the trailing truck.

The 2-6-2 enloyed a very brief period of popularity, something like less than 10 years and very few designs were successful.  Sort of an "orphan" wheel arrangement.

[Guilford Guy]

http://photos.nerail.org/photos/2005/07/14/2005071420421924386.jpg
http://photos.nerail.org/photos/2005/07/14/200507142039574464.jpg
http://photos.nerail.org/photos/2005/07/15/200507152059395897.jpg
http://photos.nerail.org/photos/2006/01/22/200601222048202210.jpg

[r.cprmier]

Gene;
Small power did generally outlive larger engines.  On the New Haven, the last two engines to go to the scrapper's torch were 0-8-0s.  A Mikado was kept on the property at Cedar Hill and used in snow melting duty for turnouts.  it also saw road assignments right up until 1959, in one form or another, the culmination being the engine in the movie "It Happened to Jayne".

I will second your opinion about small power on layouts being a little more plausible than the ground-pawing snorting steeds we call "motive power".

Rich

[r.cprmier]

Gene;
Where were you in Korea?  I was scheduled for a TDY assignment at Osan, but that got changed at Tachikawa AB.  I went elsewhere...

RIch

[SteamGene]

Rich,
'67-68.  Specifically, 14 May (Mother's Day) '67 to 1 June 68.  2nd ID along the DMZ.
Gene

[Les]

r.cpmier - Had not heard of Tachikawa since the 50s when I was stationed at Haneda (Tokyo International) during the height of the Korean War when many of the casualties would come through Haneda for air evac to the States.   This reply doesn't have much to do with the Prairie which I do have one - it runs fine.  Les

[andrechapelon]

The 2-6-2 enloyed a very brief period of popularity, something like less than 10 years and very few designs were successful.  Sort of an "orphan" wheel arrangement.

Apparently, the Santa Fe didn't get the memo, rostering 238 examples of the wheel arrangement. In fact, Santa Fe converted 4 light 4-6-2's to 2-6-2's in the late 1920's. SF's Prairies were used in all kinds of assignments, including helper service (most notably assisting 2-10-4's on Oklahoma's Curtis Hill) late in the steam era.

Andre