"CHALLENGER" Thread!

[japasha]

While the 2-6-6-6 was a good industrial design, it flunked weighing what it was supposed to. It was well over the axle weight limit specified by both the C&O and Virginian. There was some fineling done when the locomotive was weighed.

The Challenger was the UP's idea for getting the axles split as opposed to the 4-12-2. A much more flexible engine. If some is good, then more is better so they went back to ALCO and asked for something bigger and got it. It didn't fit the turntables so the added a jack for the last axle..

The Milwaukie did their homework based on locomotives available for the 1914 period. The electis initially cut their operating costs in the divisions equipped by almost 52%. The electics were faster, required a lot less maintenance and didn't pull out couplers. The N&W and Virginain both took note of the operating economies tyhe Milwaukie had gotton. The C&O had better grades than either the N&W and Virginian and stayed with steam.

The UP wanted speed on its fast freights and the Challengers and Big Boys did that. The 2-6-6-6 slugged out the grades. But the large steamers on the uP were supplanted by Gas Turbines which were even fasterand required less maintenance. For the UP, speed was of the essence on big blocks of reefers and such.

Coal haulers aren't speed demons.

[rains train]

WOO! Something about the topic actually!

Alex

[Guilford Guy]

I think a lot of Big Boy hype , is bigger is better. I mean, you don't see any people making threads about, say UP 4-6-0's. Sure it was powerful, and its monstrous, but its still an everyday steam locomotive.
As for the model aspect, there are wayy too many models... The models look good and all, but do we really need 3+ different manufacturers of Big Boys or Challengers, and few manufacturer's of pacific's and other popular steamers?

[rains train]

But everyone loves a big engine. 

Alex

[Atlantic Central]

Japasha,

Your comments are based on how the 2-6-6-6 was used not what it was capable of, every expert on steam has said it was incorrectly used or under used by both roads - It was capable of high speeds just like a Challenger/Big Boy and had much more TE/horespower. The few times they where used in passenger service proved this.

As for electrics, this is a game of book keeping, if you shift expenses from the loco department to the track department it does show great cost savings, but over the really long hall it is simply not there. The long term maintenance on the catenary and power plants is never figured in.

As for the weight of the H-8, true it was at or above its design axle loading, but in practical application that did not prove to be a problem, in fact it added to the locos increadable TE with no reported track problems. I will admitt that the UP might have needed to upgrade some track to use them though.

Sheldon

[SteamGene]

One of the most dangerous words in the English language is "everybody."  There are four people in my house right now who have no use for "big engines."  In fact I much prefer the work horses, the Mikes, Consolidations, and Pacifics.  My layout requires big engines, so I have big engines as well.
Japasha, I'll get back to you with facts, rather than opinions, but your last statement is pure hookey.  AFAIK, every steam locomotive in contention for "fastest" burned coal.  I don't know how the fuel plays into speed, as that is a factor of driver diameter, cylinder size, boiler pressure, and load.  You are correct that both the Allegheny and the Blue Ridge weighed more than the advertized, but both the C&O and the Virginian had track that could handle the axle weight which improved the locomotive's ability to haul a heavy load. 
BTW, you can't blame the tool for its misuse by the owner.  If I shoot a squirrel for brunswick stew and use a .30'06, it's my fault, not the rifle's.  Sure, I should have used a .22 long rifle, but I didn't.  The C&O should have used the H-8 for fast manifest freight, but it didn't.  It used it to conserve fuel getting its bread and butter - coal - to market. 
Gene

[japasha]

Gene, The last steam locomotive to do 100 mph on the Southern was not a coal burner. It was 4449 an oil burning SP locomotive. I was on board for the ride with Graham Claytor. There was a whole trainload of witnesses as well as the staff from Trains Magazine.

For the naysayers on the electrics, go to Middleton's book "When the Steam Railroads Electified" I beleive that Middleton still lives in Charlottesville, ask him yourself as he had acces to the Milwaukie's records. What happened there was that the Electrics allowed them to merge two difficult divisions in Montana into one with no crew changes. The same for the Washington electrification.  As the electrics could MU with one crew, they could cover those two diviison with one crew and no helpers. The savings paid for the cost in five years.

The 2-6-6-2 was very hard on the roadbed and track because of over weight. I agree on it's speed capability  but being as overweight as it was, even the C&O knew how it tore up the tracks and operated them accordingly. Same with the Virginian whose version was even heavier on the axles.

Electrifications were done when labor was cheaper and there was no other competitor. Diesels hadn't happened yet. When they did, the run-through capability killed both steam and any electric system that needed renewal.

The cost of maintain roadbed and bridges under the weight finally made the railroads realize that they had to change. They were stuck until Diesels came. 

BTW, in my opinion, the 2-6-6-4 the N&W used was a much better locomotive than the 2-6-6-6 as it was built for purpose buy the railroad which understood what it needed.

[SteamGene]

The fact that an SP oil burner went 100 MPH on Southern iron does not make coal slow.  A PRR K-4 exceeded 100MPH, as did the NYC 900.  C&O J-3s and the L classes hit the century mark as did Southern's PS-4s.  Again, it's not the type of fuel that makes speed. 
As for electrification, I'm a member of one of the Milwaukee Road groups and the de-electrification is a subject of great debate.  However, I know that Milwaukee produced its own electricity and sold surplus to towns along the way.  In an area with high mountains and swift rivers, hydro-electric power is cheap. 
Yes, the N&W Y6 and the A were strong, powerful locomotives.  So, apparently was theB&O EM-1, though I know little about it.  Likewise the DM&IR Yellowstones.  A glance at steamlocomotive.com will show that the Challenger and Big Boy had lots of challengers from bigger boys, depending on what is measured. 
There are plenty of us here who realize that while the UP giants deserve respect, they are not the sine qua non that neophytes tend to make them. 
Gene

[TonyD]

Now, before anyone gets too posessive, this thread is a bit more than a wealth of knowledge from people who obviously -don't just remember facts of history, but experienced it. The thread starting with articulated steam and continuing with the money problems of a fallen flag torn up- i will bet 10 or 15 years before some people on here were born. If I recall, dog hair was the reason some people are even on MR BACHMANN'S HO site AND thread. OK, stick to big steam? The D&H had many challengers, soon after the UP'S prototypes. A lot like them. Ran for free, burning waste coal from the company's own coal washers.....who know's what a coal washer is?? the newest were 6 years old when they were sold for junk, and the D&H mu'd switchers just to avoid firing up challengers until enough rs 2's and 3's were built. Until the bad ol days of Guilford, the D&H was run by level headed reasonable -and sentimental? officers, and being a coal road, dropping big steam must have had big reasons. Do half of you know of the Milwaukee road? Or a New Haven FL-9? Then sit still and read, you will learn more here by accident than all the websites on the www...btw, i think the western roads didn't do third rail because of the fencing needed for livestock, maybe snow drift issues too....and btw again, South Africa's 4-8-2+2-8-4 territory was mostly all electrified, figuring the coal was best spent powering wires than fireboxes, history will prove who was right... how many of you heard of'Beyer-Garrett'? Or shoveled coal on the footplate of one pulling a mixed train? So sit still and read.......

[rains train]

Mhmm....

[r.cprmier]

Tony;
Amen.  Well put.

Rich

[rains train]

So does anyone actually have an HO challenger? If so, how does it run/how do you like it? 

Alex

[hotrainlover]

I have a HO Challenger.  It pulls everything I put on it.  My layout is 14' x 22'.  It  is a "L" shaped 2 looped main with a engine facility and Wharf area.  I have a 2% grade in one area.  This is 1 of 2 ALL Metal engines I have.  It was a great investment! Lionel should be proud!

hotrainlover

[rains train]

Yay! Some good things about the challenger! 

Alex

[SteamGene]

Alx,
Nobody is trying to put down the UP big steamers.  But they are not the sina qua non, as I've said before.  I'm sure all of us are happy that you are happy with your new locomotive and I'm sure that I'm only one of several happy to see a young person enjoying steam.  But it is one of several equals:
N&W A & Y6b
DM&IR Yellowstone
B&O EM-1
C&O H-8
Gene