Top Locomotives Never Built

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

^ Wheeling and Pittsburgh to Easton and Philadelphia....interesting. Definitely a line for bridge traffic over the Appalachians from the NYC and NKP on the west side of the Appalachians to the LV and probably CNJ on the east side at Easton, the Western Maryland at Baltimore (and maybe branching south via Frederick to meet the B&O's junction point at Point of Rocks, thus allowing Washington service?) and presumably somebody else in the Lehigh Valley area. Unless you have access to the docks in Philadelphia I'm not sure what use that line is going to be aside from carrying coal to Philadelphia because the PRR is going to swallow up all of the interchange traffic whole as their route is likely shorter. If you want to use the Ma and Pa route as a freight conduit you'll need to completely rebuild it to deal with the fact that it is as long as it is - the PRR line between the two is over 20 miles shorter even before you get to upgrading. If it were me, I'd dump the Ma and Pa route and build from scratch from York to Baltimore and give the PRR a real run for their money, and make Lancaster a junction point for trains to Wilmington as well as Philadelphia. Do this and then do an interchange deal with the NYC or NKP in Pittsburgh or Wheeling and you're off to the races.

Admittedly the Ma & Pa part is more of an experiment than anything. And I was thinking reaching the Philly Docks was part and parcel of the idea for the South Mountain itself.

A related note was that I had the idea for it to be split between the NYC and my TL's take on Conrail when the 1970s comes. The NYC gets the lines to Philly and Harrisbueg, and Conrail gets the Harrisburg - Easton line.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

^ Wheeling and Pittsburgh to Easton and Philadelphia....interesting. Definitely a line for bridge traffic over the Appalachians from the NYC and NKP on the west side of the Appalachians to the LV and probably CNJ on the east side at Easton, the Western Maryland at Baltimore (and maybe branching south via Frederick to meet the B&O's junction point at Point of Rocks, thus allowing Washington service?) and presumably somebody else in the Lehigh Valley area. Unless you have access to the docks in Philadelphia I'm not sure what use that line is going to be aside from carrying coal to Philadelphia because the PRR is going to swallow up all of the interchange traffic whole as their route is likely shorter. If you want to use the Ma and Pa route as a freight conduit you'll need to completely rebuild it to deal with the fact that it is as long as it is - the PRR line between the two is over 20 miles shorter even before you get to upgrading. If it were me, I'd dump the Ma and Pa route and build from scratch from York to Baltimore and give the PRR a real run for their money, and make Lancaster a junction point for trains to Wilmington as well as Philadelphia. Do this and then do an interchange deal with the NYC or NKP in Pittsburgh or Wheeling and you're off to the races.

Admittedly, I did have the idea of a NY to Baltimore line being done but a TTL railroad which loosely adapts this idea.

Philadelphia Northern - Google My Maps

Red pins are inactive stations, Green pins are active stations, Yellow stars are points of interest, Green circles are engine servicing facilities. Blue lines are active, Red lines are inactive, Green lines are subsidiaries, Yellow lines are other railroad companies unaffiliated with, yet...

www.google.com

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

This one is inspired in part by idea I had in the past for how to keep the Rio Grande narrow gauge between Chama and Durango intact.

Denver & Rio Grande Western L-52 Class 2-6-8-0
Built: 1927
Number Built: 20 Total
Builder: Baldwin Locomotive Works
Operated: 1927 - 1964 (Revenue); 1965 - Present (Excursion)

Like many other more unique locomotives in the inter-war era, these "Little Big Engines" were built as the result of a series of unique circumstances that led to the line needing locomotives like these instead of other options. As with many other unique and wonderful locomotives however, we need a brief history lesson to understand why they came to be.

The Denver & Rio Grande Western's San Juan Division from Alamosa and Antonito, Colorado to Cortez, Colorado via Durango, and to Shiprock, New Mexico via Farmington, is a line not like many others. A remnant of General Palmer's original Denver - Mexico City vision for the Rio Grande, it is one of the few remaning 3' 6'' gauge common carrier railways in North America, and the only such route in the Continental United States. What has enabled the San Juan Division to go on this way was that it had is the unique combination of being a profitable line, but not running through an area where conversion to Standard Gauge was easy. As such, the Rio Grande opted to instead make more judicious upgrades to these parts of the "Colorado Gauge" in the 1920s and as part of the 1930s era New Deal - the most notable one being to expand the line's loading gauge to a more generous one on par with the 3' 6'' gauge trunk lines of southern Africa. Another key part of these upgrades was plans for new locomotives to operate the line, most of them being outside-frame Mikados like the K-27 "Mudhens" before.

However, increasing loads during the course of the 1920s, and then the buildup to war in the 1930s meant that larger and more potent motive power would be neccessary. As such, the Rio Grande went to Baldwin to brainstorm new ideas. Evnetually, Baldwin presented the idea for an inside-frame 2-10-0 "Decapod" which would be designed to take advantage of the San Juan Division's recent loading gauge upgrades. However, The Rio Grande was concerned that the locomotive's long frame would hinder its ability over Cumbres Pass between Antonito and Chama, New Mexico. As such, further refinement to the design was made to expand it into a 2-6-8-0 simple articulated, which both improved its ability to traverse Cumbres Pass and also haul heavier loads. Several eccentricites of the original Decapod design remained however, including the use of a Belpaire forebox (to compsensate for a smaller grate area than on the Mikados), roller bearings, a mechanical stoker, thermic syphons, feedwater heaters, and a six-axle tender.

When put to work on the Rio Grande in late 1927, the L-52 locomotives proved themselves to be strong machines. Capable of hauling the freight up Cumbres Pass, even if assistance was still needed, but also capable of cruising across the flatter terrain between Antonito and Alamosa at up to 60 mph. While the L-52's primary domain was on the line to Cumbres Pass, they could be seen on the mainlines from Chama to Durango and Farmington a fair number of times until the introduction of the F-45 class 2-10-2s in 1937, which were in fact an evolved form of Baldwin's original Decapod design for the L-52. The region's gas and mineral boom of the 1950s would also lead to a further reprive for the Rio Grande narrow gauge at large, and the Rio Grande, rather than ditching the narrow gauge, began work on modernizing the San Juan Division in that time period. This would lead to a spectacular sight as L-52s, wether alone or assisting K-36, K-37, or F-45 locomotives, storming through Cumbress Pass with heavy mineral trains, usually coal, headed to transfer on to standard gauge tracks Antonito, where the Rio Grande constructed a facility to efficiently transfer loads of all kinds from narrow gauge to standard gauge freight cars in 1957.

Unfortunately for the L-52s, part of the modernization of the San Juan Extension would be the replacement of steam with diesel traction like on most other American railroads at the time. While the oil crisis of the mid-1950s did impede the progress of diesel traction (not to mention the decline of passenger rail), the Rio Grande still began acquiring EMD GL26MC diesels in 1959. By this point however, the tourist trade that the San Juan Extension had helped build for the region was in full swing, and many considered the steam locomotives to be integral to the line's charm. This would ensure the preservation of three members at the Rio Grande's old roundhouse in Chama - #502, #507, and #511 - where they continue to haul excursions often with a K-36 or K-37 for the climb over Cumbres to this day. In addition two other members are preserved in different location. #504 is preserved at the Colorado Railroad Museum in Denver's suburb of Golden and #506 is on static display at the eastern end of the line in Antonito near the station where Bustang Rail's Front Range from Cheyenne to Santa Fe meets with the San Juan Express to Durango and Dolores, the latter of which uses Americanized clones of Japanese DMUs for more time-sensitive passenger services.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

@TheMann the main reason I went with an articulated for my TL's Colorado Gauge is because I felt the Rio Grande probably would prefer a more tried and true articulated (tried and true in North America, anyways). After all, 2-8-8-2s were proposed in OTL for that line.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

^ Wheeling and Pittsburgh to Easton and Philadelphia....interesting. Definitely a line for bridge traffic over the Appalachians from the NYC and NKP on the west side of the Appalachians to the LV and probably CNJ on the east side at Easton, the Western Maryland at Baltimore (and maybe branching south via Frederick to meet the B&O's junction point at Point of Rocks, thus allowing Washington service?) and presumably somebody else in the Lehigh Valley area. Unless you have access to the docks in Philadelphia I'm not sure what use that line is going to be aside from carrying coal to Philadelphia because the PRR is going to swallow up all of the interchange traffic whole as their route is likely shorter. If you want to use the Ma and Pa route as a freight conduit you'll need to completely rebuild it to deal with the fact that it is as long as it is - the PRR line between the two is over 20 miles shorter even before you get to upgrading. If it were me, I'd dump the Ma and Pa route and build from scratch from York to Baltimore and give the PRR a real run for their money, and make Lancaster a junction point for trains to Wilmington as well as Philadelphia. Do this and then do an interchange deal with the NYC or NKP in Pittsburgh or Wheeling and you're off to the races.

Another possibility I thought of was to keep the South Pennsylvania Railroad separate from the South Mountain. My idea under this new scheme would be to call the former the "South Mountain Railway" while the Harrisburg - Allentown line (now extended to is called the "Hudson, Sesquahana, and Eastern". This allows the South Mountain to eventually join the NYC, while the HS&E later joins conrail.

Or I could just stick to my original idea to have them be the same railroad, but split up by Conrail and the NYC in the late 70s.

 

[TheMann]

@TheMann the main reason I went with an articulated for my TL's Colorado Gauge is because I felt the Rio Grande probably would prefer a more tried and true articulated (tried and true in North America, anyways). After all, 2-8-8-2s were proposed in OTL for that line.

Maybe so, I do think a 2-6-8-0 isn't a great design for the road, even with a Belpaire firebox to improve steaming. An articulated that size is still going to have a VERY long boiler for a narrow gauge engine and nobody is going to do 60 mph on 3'6" track with a steam locomotive and a load behind it. And to talk about the size of a frame for a Decapod and then go to an articulated is a bit of an issue, no? After all, a simple articulated doesn't have a jointed boiler.

If you're planning on a design to take advantage of line improvements and you're thinking of a freight engine, I'd suggest an outside-frame 2-10-4. The outside frame means the weight is spread across a wider area (good for stability) and with a ten-coupled machine with a big firebox you're gonna get a free-steamer with a lot of tractive effort, a pint-sized C&O T-1. If you're worried about grunt on track that has tighter curves and you're not worried too much about speed, go with a Garratt with a leading truck (like a 2-8-0+0-8-2 or something like it) - the vast majority of the weight is on the drivers, your fuel and water is adding to your tractive effort and curve handling is a big plus.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Maybe so, I do think a 2-6-8-0 isn't a great design for the road, even with a Belpaire firebox to improve steaming. An articulated that size is still going to have a VERY long boiler for a narrow gauge engine and nobody is going to do 60 mph on 3'6" track with a steam locomotive and a load behind it. And to talk about the size of a frame for a Decapod and then go to an articulated is a bit of an issue, no? After all, a simple articulated doesn't have a jointed boiler.

That and come to think of it, they could do something similar to the BR 9F where the middle driver lacked a flange and the flanges on the second and fourth wheel had shorter flanges. Perhaps that approach works better?

If you're planning on a design to take advantage of line improvements and you're thinking of a freight engine, I'd suggest an outside-frame 2-10-4. The outside frame means the weight is spread across a wider area (good for stability) and with a ten-coupled machine with a big firebox you're gonna get a free-steamer with a lot of tractive effort, a pint-sized C&O T-1. If you're worried about grunt on track that has tighter curves and you're not worried too much about speed, go with a Garratt with a leading truck (like a 2-8-0+0-8-2 or something like it) - the vast majority of the weight is on the drivers, your fuel and water is adding to your tractive effort and curve handling is a big plus.

Admittedly that 2-10-4 design is pretty similar to the idea I had behind the F-45 2-10-2s.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

That and come to think of it, they could do something similar to the BR 9F where the middle driver lacked a flange and the flanges on the second and fourth wheel had shorter flanges. Perhaps that approach works better?

@TheMann Going off of this, perhaps the 2-6-8-0 is a proposed alternative before Baldwin gets the idea to just reduce the depth of some of the wheel flanges.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

2-10-4

A 2-10-4 was actually something I've mused about for an alternative replacement for the Decapod. The main difference is that my idea was to use an design similar to the Dona Theresa Christina 2-10-4s in Brazil, albeit with more modern features.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Given @TheMann's critiques on my original idea, I decided to go a different direction on evolving my idea for a Rio Grande 3' 6'' "Colorado Gauge" fleet by 1950s of my TL. For simplicty's sake, I'll also include the foreign locomotives that came to the railroad for excursion service in the 1970s onward later.

K Series (2-8-2 Mikados)
- 15 Class K-27 (#450 - #464)
-- #453 and #463 in operation, based out of Durango for excursion service on the Silverton Branch.
-- #454 and #461 in operation at the Rio Grande Southern Scenic Railway between Ouray and Telluride via Montrose.
-- #464 in operation at the Otter Lake Railway in Gennessee Township, Michigan. [1]
-- #462 scrapped, but tender preserved for work train in Chama.
-- All other K-27s scrapped.

- 10 Class K-28 (#470 - #479)
-- #473, #476, and #478 in operation, based out of Durango for service on the Silverton Branch.
-- #479 on display at the National Railroad Museum in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
-- All six other K-28s, alongside the 479, ran on the WP&YR in WWII, with the 479 and 474 joining several clones of the type on the Oahu Railway in Hawaii.

- 10 Class K-36 (#480 - #489)
-- #480, #481, #482, #486, #487, and #489: Based out of Durango for excursion service to Dolores and Cortez via Mancos, with occasional trips to Farmington.
-- #484 and #488: Stored in Durango.
-- #485: Destroyed in accident at Salida, Colorado in 1962 and taken apart for spares.

- 10 Class K-37 (#490 - #499)
-- #492, #493, #494, #496, and #497: Based out of Chama for use on the line to Durango or the Cumbres Pass line to Antonito.
-- #491: Operable at the Colorado Railway Museum in Golden.
-- #495: On display in Antonito, Colorado.
-- #498: Stored in Durango.
-- #499: On display at Royal Gorge Park in Canon City, Colorado.
-- #490: Taken apart for spares in 1964.

F Series (2-10-2 Santa Fes/2-10-4 Texas Types) [2]
- 17 2-10-2 Class F-42s (#500 - #516) [3]
-- #502, #508, #511, and #513: Based out of Farmington for trains to Durango and Chama.
-- #504: Static display in Farmington.
-- #506: Static display in Durango.

- 10 2-10-4 Class F-48s (#520 - #529)
-- #522, #523, and #529: Based out of Farmington for trains to Durango and Chama.
-- #525: Static Display in Cortez, Colorado

V Series (2-8-2+2-8-2 Garratts) [4]
- 5 Class V-56s (#530 - #534)
-- #531: Based out of Chama for trains to Antonito.
-- #530: Static Display at Dolores, Colorado

Foreign Locomotives: Categorized by country
- Australia
-- SAR 400 Class 4-8-2+2-8-4 #405 "The Kangaroo": Based out of Chama for trains to Antonito.

- Japan
-- JNR C62 Class 4-6-4 #28 "Princess Sakura/Sakura-hime": Based out of Durango for excursions to Farmington.

- South Africa
-- SAR/SAS 15F Class 4-8-2 #3024 "The Voortrekker": Based out of Durango for trains to Chama and Antonito.
-- SAR/SAS 15F Class 4-8-2 #3106 "The Zulu Warrior": Based out of Durango for trains to Chama and Antonito.

[1] My TL's take on the Huckleberry Railway, and is a slightly longer route covering the entirety of the former Pere Marquette branch it runs over.
[2] The main reason the 2-10-4 was classified under the F series with 2-10-2s is that these were the only locomotives that the Rio Grande operated of that arrangement, and were evolutions of the earlier 2-10-2s anyway. In any case, both locomotives are similar to the outside-frame locomotives that operated on the Dona Theresa Christina Railway in Brazil, albeit with several more modern features such as feedwater heaters, roller bearings, and boxpok drivers in the case of the F-48s.
[3] My idea is that when being designed, they were initially thought of as 2-10-0 Decapods, but then the design was modified to include a trailing truck for navitagting curves, and a larger firebox.
[4] Famously the only Garratts in the US to be built for a railroad other than the Southern.

 

[TheMann]

^ I don't think you need that many operating ones, particularly if you have the four arrivals from Australia, Japan and South Africa. The tourist trade would be a big deal but for this much of an operating system, you'd be better off to have some freight service that remains being pulled by steam power, which will in its own right become a major tourist attraction.

The lines from Montrose to Ouray and Telluride via Ridgeway would be a system in its own right, but freight traffic there is basically nil so you'll need to make it possible for the narrow-gauge line to act as a passenger transportation system virtually year-round, which could be tricky. Idea on that front: Make it so that the line from Montrose to Delta is dual-gauge track, allowing the narrow-gauge system to reach Delta and the Amtrak trains that stop there. Ski trains and tourist operations go to Delta, where the lines to Ouray and Telluride take tourists there in big numbers. Ideally, you'd keep the line to Gunnison as part of this system as well, allowing the Rio Grande Southern Scenic to be able to access Gunnison as well, with the traffic there adding to the system, and the freight service between Montrose and Delta also helping. Further south, the entire NG system west of Alamosa has to be kept available (and the Chili line to the ATSF at Santa Fe maintained at standard gauge) for that level to power to work.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

^ I don't think you need that many operating ones, particularly if you have the four arrivals from Australia, Japan and South Africa. The tourist trade would be a big deal but for this much of an operating system, you'd be better off to have some freight service that remains being pulled by steam power, which will in its own right become a major tourist attraction.

FWIW I was thinking many locomotives would be used in turn to save wear and tear on some and buy time to overhaul others. Though I did imagine some steam engines hauling freight when neccessary like in busy seasons. That said, the idea of a few freight trains being pulled by steam is an attractive idea: after all the Strasburg Railroad does operate its steam engines on freight quite often.

The lines from Montrose to Ouray and Telluride via Ridgeway would be a system in its own right, but freight traffic there is basically nil so you'll need to make it possible for the narrow-gauge line to act as a passenger transportation system virtually year-round, which could be tricky. Idea on that front: Make it so that the line from Montrose to Delta is dual-gauge track, allowing the narrow-gauge system to reach Delta and the Amtrak trains that stop there. Ski trains and tourist operations go to Delta, where the lines to Ouray and Telluride take tourists there in big numbers. Ideally, you'd keep the line to Gunnison as part of this system as well, allowing the Rio Grande Southern Scenic to be able to access Gunnison as well, with the traffic there adding to the system, and the freight service between Montrose and Delta also helping. Further south, the entire NG system west of Alamosa has to be kept available (and the Chili line to the ATSF at Santa Fe maintained at standard gauge) for that level to power to work.

Admittedly I did imagine the Montrose to Gunnison line being converted to standard gauge at some point, with the Rio Grande Southern Scenic being a purely tourist affair likely run by volunteers. Though I did have the idea that the dual-gauge from Alamosa to Antonito would remain dual-gauged for quite a bit longer than OTL.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

At risk of getting lynched may I suggest .....................

Class 142 Pacers built on a chassis with proper bogies rather than freight a waggon chassis. Sure they would cost a bit more, but speaking as someone who rode on the damn things every day for years it would be a huge improvement. Not only would the ride be smoother, but you wouldn't be able to hear them coming 5 minutes before they reach the station.



Ducks, runs for cover.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

FWIW I was thinking many locomotives would be used in turn to save wear and tear on some and buy time to overhaul others. Though I did imagine some steam engines hauling freight when neccessary like in busy seasons. That said, the idea of a few freight trains being pulled by steam is an attractive idea: after all the Strasburg Railroad does operate its steam engines on freight quite often.

Even so @TheMann, I do think steam on actual freights (as opposed to photo charters) would probably something that's rare by the early 1980s.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Idea on that front: Make it so that the line from Montrose to Delta is dual-gauge track, allowing the narrow-gauge system to reach Delta and the Amtrak trains that stop there. Ski trains and tourist operations go to Delta, where the lines to Ouray and Telluride take tourists there in big numbers

An alternative idea based on what happened between the SL&RG and C&TS in OTL at Antonito.

Have a service from TTL's Bustang Rail connect with Amtrak's long-distance California Zephyr and Bustang Rail's own General Palmer regional services at Grand Junction. From there the Bustang Rail travels south to Ridgeway via Delta and Montrose. Another branch of Bustang Rail services reaches Crested Butte from Montrose via Gunnision, if that line can be converted to standard gauge by the 1990s.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Ideally, you'd keep the line to Gunnison as part of this system as well, allowing the Rio Grande Southern Scenic to be able to access Gunnison as well, with the traffic there adding to the system

The trouble there: isn't there a dammed up area where the railway once was in OTL?

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

The trouble there: isn't there a dammed up area where the railway once was in OTL?

@TheMann then again perhaps if the Rio Grande upgrades the line to Standard Gauge in say... the 30s, maybe in TTL the resovior can be located elsewhere?

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

@TheMann This so far is my ideas for what fates could be in store for each part of the Colorado Gauge in my TL. For simplicity's sake I won't be including TTL lines like the Cheyenne and Las Vegas extensions mostly because they're built as standard gauge anyway.

Also I figured I'd include the Rio Grande Southern as part of the map simply because it was jointed at the hip.

Slight mistake, but the Monarch branch is still purely 3' 6'' in TTL.

 

[TheMann]

^ The Marshall Pass route isn't viable in all likelihood as a narrow-gauge route, that one either standard gauge it all the way to Montrose or pull it up as there is no point in a break of gauge at both ends of it. Likewise, the Rio Grande Southern route via Rico is a waste of time - there is a reason why the company was never financially healthy throughout its history. The line to Telluride has tourist potential and the lines to Gunnison and Crested Butte have freight traffic and tourist potential, but the RGS is a waste of money to build and operate. You may be able to keep the Dolores to Durango route, but the rest of it is a waste of time.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

^ The Marshall Pass route isn't viable in all likelihood as a narrow-gauge route, that one either standard gauge it all the way to Montrose or pull it up as there is no point in a break of gauge at both ends of it. Likewise, the Rio Grande Southern route via Rico is a waste of time - there is a reason why the company was never financially healthy throughout its history. The line to Telluride has tourist potential and the lines to Gunnison and Crested Butte have freight traffic and tourist potential, but the RGS is a waste of money to build and operate. You may be able to keep the Dolores to Durango route, but the rest of it is a waste of time.

FWIW I did imagine the RGS north of Dolores and south of Vance Junction being abandoned soon after the TTL map was released. With the conversion of all narrow gauge lines north of Alamosa to standard gauge following soon after.