Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Virginian 2-10-10-2

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    N'Hampsha
    Posts
    3,633

    Default RE: Virginian 2-10-10-2

    i've been looking for something like this myself. but one thing, I thought the award of largest cylinders went to Norfolk and Westerns Y6-Bs...
    http://www.steamlocomotive.com/articulated/nwy.shtml (some proto info)

    http://www.kohs.com/Y6b_Pages/Y6b_Prototype_Images.htm (and some pictures)

  2. #2
    stephenburr Guest

    Default RE: Virginian 2-10-10-2

    I agree. It would be nice if someone with the skills would do one of these.

  3. #3

    Default RE: Virginian 2-10-10-2

    >i've been looking for something like this myself. but one
    >thing, I thought the award of largest cylinders went to
    >Norfolk and Westerns Y6-Bs...
    >http://www.steamlocomotive.com/articulated/nwy.shtml (some
    >proto info)
    >
    >http://www.kohs.com/Y6b_Pages/Y6b_Prototype_Images.htm (and
    >some pictures)

    Nope, the 2-10-10-2 has 48" x 32" cylinders. Thats bigger than the Y6b's.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    London, UK.
    Posts
    570

    Default RE: Virginian 2-10-10-2

    I've still not made a US loco yet - I've been meaning to do one for years.

    Got any drawings?
    * Paul Gausden *
    * The Highworth project http://www.highworth.freeuk.com
    * Blog - http://decapod-3d.spaces.live.com/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    N'Hampsha
    Posts
    3,633

    Default RE: Virginian 2-10-10-2

    I'll try and find you some drawings Paul.

    >Nope, the 2-10-10-2 has 48" x 32" cylinders. Thats bigger than the Y6b's<

    You're right, but look around though. Even though the Virginians had 20 coupled driving wheels, and bigger cylinders, the Y6-Bs had a higher tractive effort. In fact the Y6-B had better tractive effort than a Big-Boy, the former putting out 170,000 lbs (simple expansion mode, with booster)of tractive effort, the latter putting out 135,375 lbs of tractive effort. All in all, I still like the C&O H-8 Allegheneys the best.

  6. #6
    stephenburr Guest

    Default RE: Virginian 2-10-10-2

    I'm with you there onthe Allegehnies. I thought they were the best. Virginian had them too, although I forget what their designation was for them. Burritofarmer has been working on these for awhile now. Can't wait for their release!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    N'Hampsha
    Posts
    3,633

    Default RE: Virginian 2-10-10-2

    the Virginia called theirs Blue Ridge,

  8. #8

    Default RE: Virginian 2-10-10-2

    >I'll try and find you some drawings Paul.
    >
    >>Nope, the 2-10-10-2 has 48" x 32" cylinders. Thats bigger
    >than the Y6b's<
    >
    >You're right, but look around though. Even though the
    >Virginians had 20 coupled driving wheels, and bigger
    >cylinders, the Y6-Bs had a higher tractive effort. In fact the
    >Y6-B had better tractive effort than a Big-Boy, the former
    >putting out 170,000 lbs (simple expansion mode, with
    >booster)of tractive effort, the latter putting out 135,375 lbs
    >of tractive effort. All in all, I still like the C&O H-8
    >Allegheneys the best.

    The 2-10-10-2 had 176,600 lbs Tractive Effort (in simple mode) But yes, the Y6B probably had more horse power.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Germansville, Pennsylvania, United States.
    Posts
    1,066

    Default RE: Virginian 2-10-10-2

    I don't know the exact stats on this, but Virginian also had, not for long, 2-8-8-8-4's or something really close to that, it was an experiment of some sort, IT worked to a certain extent, howver the boiler could not supply ample steam for all 3 sets of driving wheels, so I think they were rebuilt into something smaller...
    The Lehigh & New England Preservation Society: Bringing Home the L&NE 611!!!!
    For Donation information Come Visit us at: www.facebook.com/lne611 or PM Me

  10. #10

    Default RE: Virginian 2-10-10-2

    Yah, that was the Triplex. Both Erie and Virginia had a Triplex.....but from what I understand, it was just a terrible engine to fire up, and run. And the Triplex was too big to store in any sheds, so they had to keep it outside. The experiment just didn't work, and Erie and Virginia both ended up scrapping them in 1920's. People have tried making that for MSTS, but found that it was just too hard, and not possible with the tools they had.

    Thats why I'm suggesting the 2-10-10-2. Both Erie and Virginia had 16 of them. And they worked very well from what I understand....but because of their slow speed, they were later scrapped when new engines came out.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •