"CHALLENGER" Thread!

[rains train]

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!)

Alex

[Conrail Quality]

Most beautiful Challenger ever:



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.

[grumpy]

Put some side rods on it and it will look much better.
Don

[rains train]

Ya!

Alex

[SteamGene]

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

[Atlantic Central]

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

[r.cprmier]

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

[wade]

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

[SteamGene]

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

[BaltoOhioRRfan]

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.

[Atlantic Central]

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

[r.cprmier]

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 

[Atlantic Central]

Rich,

I agree completely! That's why you have learn how to screw them back.

Sheldon

[rains train]

Okay, quit hijacking my thread please, if your not here to talk about the "Big Boy" or the "Challenger", please leave.

Alex

[Conrail Quality]

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.