Yeah, that ought to work!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

What are we missing, here?

His spliced photo, don’t know why when I reply with a quote it doesn’t capture the image, but it does keep things short.

That frequently depends on where it's hosted

[Mitch]

I want one of those 2-10-10-4s! Is that available in a N gauge model?

[webenda]

I want one of those 2-10-10-4s! Is that available in a N gauge model?

[MurphOnMillerAve]

Since there appears to be a toy/model of such a steam engine, does that indicate such an engine actually existed in 1to1 scale, real life?

[Seaboard Air Line Fan]

PRR had 2-10-10-4 and ATSF had 2-10-10-2 from what I found on Google.

I recall reading that ATSF had the longest engine, or was that UP? Can't imagine what radius those required.

Seaboard had some 2-6-6-4 that were their longest at 110'. Never could figure how they turned them here in Portsmouth, they only had a 68' turntable!!! Finally found a city map that showed a Wye that went thru downtown at the end of the yard.

[webenda]

2-10-10-x's were used to push trains up long straight grades. They then backed down grade to push another train up the grade. The low tenders facilitated reverse operation.

Virginian and Santa Fe.jpg (109.58 KiB) Viewed 10879 times

Santa_Fe_2-10-10-2_locomotive_at_Emporia_Kansas_1912.JPG (233.5 KiB) Viewed 10879 times

[up148]

Yeah, before diesels, more drivers fitted to bigger locos was the only way to increase pulling power. Never realized these 2-10-10-X locos existed. Knowing the issues with most of the 8 coupled articulateds, these 2-10-10'-X's had to be an experience to operate. I wonder what they weighed?

BH

[MurphOnMillerAve]

So, Wayne, if all these photos were available, why use the photo that appeared to be "shopped" at first? Were you testing us to see if one of us were sharp enough to catch it? Or was it a mistake to interpret the photo as such? Or did such a locomotive actually have a "seam" like that in your first photo? At any rate, you sure instigated a nice , interesting conversation, sir.
Murph

[webenda]

So, Wayne, if all these photos were available, why use the photo that appeared to be "shopped" at first? Were you testing us to see if one of us were sharp enough to catch it? Or was it a mistake to interpret the photo as such? Or did such a locomotive actually have a "seam" like that in your first photo? At any rate, you sure instigated a nice , interesting conversation, sir.
Murph

The "real deal" is not as impressive as some of the designs S. Berliner comes up with.
The original concept came from S. Berliner, who loves to create, "What if," locomotives.

jj1.gif (200.66 KiB) Viewed 10852 times

I did not create the JJ1 image, I found it here:=> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/386746686732325323/

I did not bother to fix the splice because I was not trying to fool anyone.

F.Y.I. the model 2-10-10-4 was created by me (for Jon) in the computer from a youtube video of the 2-10-4 offered by Hallmark.
Reference: https://youtu.be/l8WHqPeoH78

Nobody stated, "No such thing!", so I will say it here, the image of a Hallmark model of a non-existent Santa Fe 2-10-10-4 was created for fun, it is not real.

Here is another from S. Berliner. It too has some "IT'S FAKE," hints.

CP 2-10-10-6.jpg (162.71 KiB) Viewed 10852 times

S. Berliner's web site:=> http://sbiii.com/bwapoc16.html

[MurphOnMillerAve]

And you are right, Wayne, it was fun to imagine.

[John Webster]

Back in the early 1900s the Santa Fe's engineering department tried out several articulated designs including some with hinged boilers.

Narrow Gauge and Short Line Gazette has been running a series on the locomotives of the East Broad Top. This month they included a quotation drawing for a 3' gauge 2-10-2 that was never ordered because the railroad didn't think it would go around their wyes.

[Roy]

I think it's interesting that after UP did their initial experiments with articulateds, they came up with the large 4-12-2 UP-type with a long fixed driver wheelbase:



These were more efficient than the articulateds they replaced. The Soviets tried the same on a 4-14-4, but it was not successful.

[up148]

I think it's interesting that after UP did their initial experiments with articulateds, they came up with the large 4-12-2 UP-type with a long fixed driver wheelbase:



These were more efficient than the articulateds they replaced. The Soviets tried the same on a 4-14-4, but it was not successful.

The early articulateds were Mallets and used the steam twice and were very complicated machines because of this. Steam went to a high pressure cylinder on one engine first and then exhausted to a lower pressure cylinder on the other engine. Not efficient and these locos were very slow (generally plodding along at 10-15 mph), but they could pull a lot of tonnage. When the newer articulateds came about (1936) steam was run into same size cylinders on both front and rear engines at the same time. These were much less complicated machines and could operate at high speed and still haul a lot of tonnage.

The Challengers and Big Boys using this newer technology killed off the 4-12-2 and relegated them to pushers and less priority trains.

Someone might be able to explain it better.

BH

[MurphOnMillerAve]

Seems to me, BH, that you did a good job of explaining.
And from that, my previous amateur notion that steam locomotives were built for specific purposes, such as moving heavy loads or fast passenger service, was further reinforced. An example of that would be the "high-stepping" Atlantics, built for speedy passenger service. At least, that is how I have presented them on my layout, as only pulling a consist of coaches. I welcome any correction to that conclusion.

[Tom Dempsey]

Seems to me, BH, that you did a good job of explaining.
And from that, my previous amateur notion that steam locomotives were built for specific purposes, such as moving heavy loads or fast passenger service, was further reinforced. An example of that would be the "high-stepping" Atlantics, built for speedy passenger service. At least, that is how I have presented them on my layout, as only pulling a consist of coaches. I welcome any correction to that conclusion.

As I understand it, steam locomotives were purpose built for a single job. The fact that diesel electrics could be MU'd meant only one crew required per train, longer maintenance periods, standardization of parts, and allowed the trainmaster to build the locomotive required for each train from component parts, i.e., how many GP-9's do I need to get this train over the ruling grade on this section of the line.