There was some talk in the recent "Steam Preservation in Kentucky" thread about perhaps trying to restore Louisville & Nashville 0-8-0 # 2152 to run at some point in the future. The consensus seemed to be that an 0-8-0 was not a good locomotive for trains at museums or tourist lines. Which makes me curious as to why it would be so labelled when we currently have (or had in the past) well over a dozen 0-6-0 tender engines in such service. What makes an 0-8-0 a definite no-no? I'm far from a steam locomotive expert, but if the track was heavy enough, wouldn't an 0-8-0 with its longer wheelbase be better than an 0-6-0? I welcome being enlightened!

Les

I'd like to contest the assumption that all switchers were low speed. I frequently hear that they "never ran more than 10 mph". The Alton & Southern, for example, used their three cylinder 0-8-0 and sometimes their 0-10-0 as "road switchers" and would have commonly seen 20-25mph.

On a steam locomotive, 10mph is virtually a walking pace.
The 1630 at IRM, with 52" drivers, has been clocked in the range of 40+ mph before. While it may be a bumper ride with no pilot truck, most switchers had drivers in the mid-to-high 40", or even lower 50" range. Some more modern switchers had even as large as 57" drivers. Most of the surving 0-8-0s would be perfectly capable of the speed... the crew comfort on the other hand, riding them at 20mph, would be another story (Except perhaps in the case of the single surviving 3-cylinder 0-8-0? Perhaps the six power strokes per revolution would ease the 'hunting' as it tracks?)

I'd be interested to hear from some of the places that have run 0-6-0s alongside other wheel arrangements, and if they've been able to discern one being any more hard on the track than another. And if so, if switchers are THAT much harder than any other steam locomotive.

I'm frequently surprised as I look into common beliefs (such as switcher being only good for 10mph tops), just how many are largely misconceptions, or if true, exaggerated at the least.

-Sam

Anyone who thinks that switchers only run at low speeds has clearly never ridden behind CNJ 113.

If anything, I would expect a 2-10-0 Russian Decapod to put more stress on the rails than an 0-8-0. Really, I think what it boils down to is there are less that 20 Standard gauge 0-8-0’s in North America saved (18) (7 were used at Northwestern Steel and Wire until 1980, all of which were beaten the crap out of) Now the number is 11, subtract the two L&N switchers and now you have 9 to choose from. There’s a 19th century 0-8-0 at the B&O RR museum and in no way will that locomotive move so now you have 8. The same amount of surviving Big Boys and even that behemoth is running. I could nitpick even more of the ones left, one is a sole surviving locomotive for the Virginian railway and at the transportation museum in St Louis which is another one to subtract. You can probably tell by now why we haven’t seen one run. It’s either the museum that wants it can’t run it, or the museum that can run it doesn’t want to.

As for CNJ 113 I’ve never seen a locomotive bounce like a jackrabbit while highballing down the mainline going as fast as it does. If I were the fireman i’d think it would be in the pain in the A$$ to keep that fire spread evenly among the firebox. But if I were the engineer, I’d be having one heck of a time bouncing around with all the noise.

I understand and agree with your point. There simply aren't many to choose from, and even fewer viable candidates in that list.

However, for the record there are two 0-8-0s in St. Louis, and in my opinion both are more historically and technically important than any of the others. One being the TRRA #318, the first locomotive ever produced with a cast frame and integral cylinders. The other being the Alton and Southern #12, the sole survivor from that railroad and one of only four surviving north American built 3-cylinder engines, (and the only 3-cylinder switcher, for that matter). I haven't checked against any other 0-8-0s, but I'd wager it's also the largest survivor of the type.

Also of note, any 0-8-0 is significantly larger and heavier than an 0-6-0, and has that much more weight over only a slightly longer wheelbase. The #12 mentioned above has an axle loading equivalent to an SD70 (30 tons)- thats over 120 tons standing on only 16 feet of track. For the weight alone an 0-8-0 needs beefy and well maintained track.... but in my opinion, any group that has poor track but wants to restore and run steam should probably have their priorities elsewhere...

We likely won't ever see any run, but I hope someday I'm proven wrong.

Switch engines only go slow when they need to. On most switch jobs there are plenty of light engine moves, and you want to get those done ASAP. Sure, it might be a rougher ride, but most guys are happy to put up with it if there's any possibility of an early quit.

[quote="Boilermaker"
On a steam locomotive, 10mph is virtually a walking pace.

-Sam[/quote]
10MPH is one mile every SIX minutes. I think lots of joggers would tell you that is no "walking pace". Walking pace is roughly 4-5 MPH, 12-15 minute miles.

It's a virtually walking pace for the engine compared to "running" being 35-40mph or more.....

I imagine most excursion railroads don't have turning facilities at each end of the line. Some of the most famous ones don't have turning facilities at all.

Therefore, for 50% of the time your 2-6-0 or 2-8-0 is running as an 0-6-0 or 0-8-0.

So what's the big deal?

Our Army 0-6-0 had a tender whose coupling led it into curves but it still oscillated going forward, wearing the front driver flanges. Midland Terminal installed leading trucks on their engines, making them 2-6-0's. I had understood the Army had designed the lead truck.

Phil Mulligan

To get to the gist of it. An 0-8-0 has the same axle loading as an 0-6-0. The locomotive weighs 30% more. It's all about the wheelbase. Four axle diesels are a lot easier on track than six axle ones. I set the center axles on our EMD flexicoil trucks to the looser end of the lateral spec and over years noted a little less wheel wear. It depends if you want to spend more on track to support the longer wheelbase. The lack of pilot wheels makes a real difference.

It's all how you look at it. 0-6-0's and 0-8-0's come in different sizes. CNJ had some camelback 0-8-0's they used on road drills. Despite the 4-track main, they had to hustle to stay out of the way of commuter trains, Reading New Yorkers, B&O through trains and all the through freight going to JC and E'port.

PRR B6sb 0-6-0's have a 62200 lb axle load on #2 axle, 11' 6" wheelbase and 56" drivers.
PRR C1 0-8-0's had a 74000 lb axle load on #1 axle, 15' 9" wheelbase and 56" drivers. The road preferred using H10s 2-8-0's on local freight. These have a 59850 lb axle load on #3 driving axle, 17' 1/2" driving wheelbase and 62" drivers.

Phil Mulligan

When I was at the Yolo Shortline in the 1990's we had the ex SP 1233 0-6-0 which was a class S10 switcher with 51 inch drivers. The SP had 3 draw bars on their tenders One heavy in the center and one which was half as thick on each side. Running in reverse the tender would act much like a lead truck. We had all the laterals tight, running on our heavy rail routinely at 25 mph the engine was not that ruff in reverse and it hunted very slightly in forward. The real problem with the short 11 ft wheel base was when a low spot was run over the engine would almost lift you out of your seat as it dived into and out of a low joint. I never noticed any difference in the track between what the steam engine and the 286 cars did to the track. On the Woodland branch we had a mix of 60lb and 119 lb rail. The Clarksburg branch was 70lb and 85lb and the engines did fine.

I believe the popular railfan wisdom of 0-6-0s being hard on track may have been largely popularized by "The Road to Paradise," the best-selling souvenir booklet by William M. Moedinger on the founding and development of the first quarter-century of ther Strasburg Railroad. Moedinger spent a paragraph describing how the then-newly-acquired first steam locomotive for the railroad, the 78-ton ex-CN 7312 (26 tons per axle), beat the Strasburg's ill-maintained light rail to smithereens shortly after it arrived, and had to be sidelined until repairs to the track were made. Then in encapsulating the various locos' uses, he again remarked how the loco with no lead or trailing truck/axle was now lesser used account of same and being "hard on track."

For untold thousands of budding railfans, this was their first exposure to the operating hardships of certain steamer wheel arrangements, and was certainly accepted as gospel, then and now.

The Alaska Railroad had 11 WW-2 vintage U.S. Army Transportation Corps design 0-6-0 tender locomotives. They had 50" drivers and an 11' wheel base. These were probably the same as the one mentioned above by Phil Mulligan.

Attached is an excerpt from a November 11, 1947 letter from ARR General Manager, J.P. Johnson.

The Army at Ft. Richardson, near Anchorage had some of these and the ARR did the heavy maintenance for those as well. In one case the ARR loaned one of theirs to the Army after the Army damaged a crown sheet until the ARR completed the repairs. The ARR also traded one for an early USATC Consolidation (a design that only a few were produced and which preceded the S-160) that was more suitable for road use.

In another internal letter someone from the mechanical department who was paying a visit to Lima was asked to enquire about modifying them with a lead truck. This never happened.