I always found these locomotives interesting and a peculiar design in mallet designs. I do know that German was building two 2-6-8-0s during ww2 but those locomotives were destroyed by allied bombers. Anyway a nice video about these oddities of the railway. :)
Hi trainguy2155. These odd ball types are always fun to research. It's too bad none of the American 2-6-8-0's survived either. Thanks for the feedback!!!
One has to wonder whether or not the exhaust system on these engines was strangling their performance, by trying to exhaust enormous amounts of low-pressure steam through such a small-diameter stack. The back pressure must have been considerable. A fascinating story, well told.
Hi user-cw9qn1nb2n. That's a good point. There is a limit to how large they could make the exhaust pipes, but the main culprit was the exhaust nozzle in the smoke box. The exhaust jet in the smoke box is what created the vacuum that pulled a draft through the firebox and boiler. It's kind of like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The pressure drop between the boiler and cylinders - usually around 15% - didn't help either. Thank you for the great comment and thanks for watching!!
TH-cam recommended this video to me and I'm glad I watched it since you give a good explanation of these "Kit Mallets" in just eight minutes. Fun fact though, Great Northern did have 36 of these engines, one actually was converted from an F-8 2-8-0 and numbered 2000, later 1999 when GN got the N-1 2-8-8-0s. I believe it was rebuilt into the first C-4 0-8-0 shortly before the simple conversion for the remaining 2-6-8-0s.
Hi TheTrainLord. Thanks for the information. I'll look into the F-8 conversion since it didn't come up in my initial research. Thanks for your feedback and thanks for watching!!
My dad worked for the Northern Pacific RR at one of its maintenance facilities. I have a photo of him and all the men who worked in the roundhouse taken in 1935 posing in front of one of these engines. Because the men are in front of the drive wheels it is hard to see what the configuration is of those wheels. I always assumed it was a 6-6. The only time I saw one in action was in 1950. We were traveling west on the North Coast Limited. When we came to a curve going over mountains our parents told us to look out the window to the back of the train. There was a Mallet helping the train get over the mountains.
I really like the way you've laid out this video! The video gives not only more info about an somewhat obscure locomotive type, but about locomotive operation in general. I look forward to the next videos of your channel. "🔔"
Your video was very well presented and most informative! Your narration was also quite noteworthy, direct, interesting and understandable. I also appreciate that no music or robotic voiceovers were used in the production of your video! Thanks for sharing it!
Great little “mini-doc”, thanks putting it together. I have a brass model of one of these oddities, and had often wondered how the strange wheel arrangement came about.
On the Great Northern, the steamer you get, after all the mechanical shenanigans have been done, is a low-drivered tractor that has to stay close to a water plug despite having one or two water cars behind the tender and whose boiler was better used under a mike than a simple articulated. GN’s 2-6-8-0’s were mechanical wonders for the simple fact that no two of them were alike. They did a fine job up on Minnesota’s iron range though which is not an easy place to work for humans or machines.
The main endearing feature of articulated engines to railroads was crew elimination by avoiding double heading. Added low speed tractive effort was just frosting on the cake. Cool video on an obscure wheel arrangement.
Maybe not a big success but, as I see it, the big shame was in NOT preserving one of these for railroad enthusiasts to treat their eyes to in viewing such a Goliath of a creation!
Hi tommaclary. I wasn't aware of it either until a few months ago while researching a different topic. It was definitely a story worth telling. Thanks for watching!!
They were a very interesting type for their uniqueness. In terms of wheel arrangement a 7th driving axle without sacrificing weight forward. In terms of jointed boiler a much more straightforward forward section comparred with almost literally every other example of the type. In terms of longevity probably a credit to the GN shops as well as the first two points.
Nice video, thank you. One quibble: at the start while talking about converting consolidations, you are showing the mikado final conversion. I was going "Can't he tell the difference between a mike and a consol?" 😄
@@TwistedMacGyversTrains Lionel was my first love also. I've been collecting post-war Lionel for about 20+ years now. It all started with my Dad's trains when I was a kid, then I started collecting in my late 20's. Thank you for your support and wonderful comments!!!
imagine if the "conversion" versions had worked out or got their issues solved, it may have had huge knock on effect, with many railroads (like the PRR and Rio Grande) previously having built a ton of 2-8-0s that were rapidly becoming a liability, if the conversion would have worked out then hundreds (if not a thousand or two) locomotives would have had an extension on life (of sorts) turning "useless" engines into solid revenue earners once again on the cheap, one would wonder if this would potentially have another knock on effect with these railroads, would they now put all their faith in articulation or would they still continue building future locomotives with single wheelsets like the 2-10-2 and so on?
That's a great question. If someone had resolved the issues with the 2-6-8-0, especially the simple variant, it could have given a lot old Mike's a new lease on life.
During this time period, railroads either adopted the 2-10-2 or articulated power. It was one or the other. I'm not sure if the 2-6-8-0 would have made them believers in articulated locomotives, but it is possible. Assuming the 2-6-8-0 was made into a viable design.
@@americansteamlegacy-yh9dr I mean, personally, I wouldn't mind the railroads continuing development of the 2-10-2 anyway (because I'm a sucker for more diverse line ups) but there could also be another knock on effect of this 'early' explosion in mallets causing railroads to build bigger infrastructure, which would actually be beneficial for them in the long run, even for the non-articulateds, if you have already upgraded your turntables to handle 2-6-8-0s then it wouldn't be an issue dealing with newer large rigid frame engines like (for example) 2-8-4 Berkshires.
I knew that the Great Northern O-8 class of 2-8-2 locos were rebuilt from Class M 2-6-8-0s. However, the fact that a bunch survived until about the end of steam on the GN shows that these engines were fine engines when not driven above 25 MPH. GN had several relatively short but tough helper sections and an engine that can push slow and hard would always be desirable. Despite all the rebuilding, the Class M cannot be called a "failure." To the GN, a failure was probably the 4-6-6-4 type (ironically), as both these 1937-built Class Z engines were shuffled off to SP&S by 1947. Also the entire Class L class of 2-6-6-2 Mallets were converted into O-5 and O-6 2-8-2 locos by 1925. The interesting thing is that the Class N 2-8-8--0s largely worked in Minnesota pulling heavy iron ore trains, while the Class R-1 and R-2 2-8-8-2 locos worked mostly between Seattle and Havre. GN had a lot of articulated engines, despite never really adopting the 4-6-6-4 and never using 2-8-8-4 like competitor Duluth Missabe & Iron Range, or 4-8-8-4 like Union Pacific. Of course, by the middle of WWII, GN was sold on diesel-electric.
Hi pacificstudios. Thanks for sharing all that info. I agree that heavy helper service or slow drag freight were probably the best jobs for the 2-6-8-0. But given the low adhesion factor of the simpled versions....maybe not so much. I really appreciate your depth of knowledge on this topic and thanks for sharing!!!
@@americansteamlegacy-yh9dr As a child, Lines West by Charles Wood was my favorite book. The later histories of the GN had yet to be written. Not many photos of the Class M exist, but if memory serves, they spent most of their years on the Great Falls branch as simpled M-2 class. Concentrating one class of old but powerful engines on one secondary main line would make a lot of sense, as would leaving the work on the High Line to the most modern power, the P, R and S classes, and even the Q 2-10-2 machines from the early 1920s. The GN had thousands of miles of almost flat track between Minnesota and Puget Sound with only a few mountain districts, a fact that pleased shareholders and made her the dominant company in the Northwest. That's why classes like O, P and even H 4-6--2 were front line power until the end. Her legacy is felt today on the BNSF balance sheet.
A real shame none of these locomotives were preserved. I could see why they were unpopular though, seems like you could fix a decent amount of the problems by putting a trailing axle under the rear. Seemed odd to me why they would convert older 2-8-0s into these things, it would probably have been better to just modify enough to put a rear axle and upgrade from there.
Hi Stooltoad5017. I agree. It is a shame none were preserved. As far as the conversions go, you're right, they probably would have been better off keeping the 2-8-0's as is. Thanks for watching!!
If I heard right, th GN converted their 2-6-8-0’s to simple engines, doing away with the compound design as originally delivered. Now the question I had, did they change out the front driver weights? As this would have been a real issue, for ride, locomotive weight, and excessive wear on the rails.
Hi John. To my knowledge there was no attempt to change out the front drivers or even the rear ones. Since they were rather small in diameter - 56 inches or so, get a fine tuned balance on such a small wheel was rather challenging. This may partially explain why the attempt was never made. Great question!! Thank you for your comment and thanks for watching!!
Hi nascarfan88ta. They weren't very common but there are several other examples other that the Baldwin "kit mallet's". Check out Part 4 of the Whyte Notation Series. There were 2 duplex locomotives with odd wheel configurations but they were built on rigid frames. Thanks for watching!!
Hi mumumaaaah. Yes, that's typically how people say it. But, If I said it that way, it would be a matter of time before someone called me on it. Can't win....Oh well. But, thanks for watching!!
![ฮักเทื่อสุดท้าย - บอย ศิริชัย [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-1PoPoQ-B-k/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D5 | Fall | พลาดวันนี้ จะต้องเสียใจ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A5-Cuo12p6A/mqdefault.jpg)
I always found these locomotives interesting and a peculiar design in mallet designs. I do know that German was building two 2-6-8-0s during ww2 but those locomotives were destroyed by allied bombers. Anyway a nice video about these oddities of the railway. :)
Hi trainguy2155. These odd ball types are always fun to research. It's too bad none of the American 2-6-8-0's survived either. Thanks for the feedback!!!
GREAT opening signature theme tune!
Thanks, Marv. It's called "Road Trippin'". I thought is was a good fit for a channel like this.
One has to wonder whether or not the exhaust system on these engines was strangling their performance, by trying to exhaust enormous amounts of low-pressure steam through such a small-diameter stack. The back pressure must have been considerable. A fascinating story, well told.
Hi user-cw9qn1nb2n. That's a good point. There is a limit to how large they could make the exhaust pipes, but the main culprit was the exhaust nozzle in the smoke box. The exhaust jet in the smoke box is what created the vacuum that pulled a draft through the firebox and boiler. It's kind of like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The pressure drop between the boiler and cylinders - usually around 15% - didn't help either. Thank you for the great comment and thanks for watching!!
TH-cam recommended this video to me and I'm glad I watched it since you give a good explanation of these "Kit Mallets" in just eight minutes. Fun fact though, Great Northern did have 36 of these engines, one actually was converted from an F-8 2-8-0 and numbered 2000, later 1999 when GN got the N-1 2-8-8-0s. I believe it was rebuilt into the first C-4 0-8-0 shortly before the simple conversion for the remaining 2-6-8-0s.
Hi TheTrainLord. Thanks for the information. I'll look into the F-8 conversion since it didn't come up in my initial research. Thanks for your feedback and thanks for watching!!
My dad worked for the Northern Pacific RR at one of its maintenance facilities. I have a photo of him and all the men who worked in the roundhouse taken in 1935 posing in front of one of these engines. Because the men are in front of the drive wheels it is hard to see what the configuration is of those wheels. I always assumed it was a 6-6. The only time I saw one in action was in 1950. We were traveling west on the North Coast Limited. When we came to a curve going over mountains our parents told us to look out the window to the back of the train. There was a Mallet helping the train get over the mountains.
I really like the way you've laid out this video! The video gives not only more info about an somewhat obscure locomotive type, but about locomotive operation in general. I look forward to the next videos of your channel.
"🔔"
Hi weylinwest9505. Thank you for the feedback and I'm glad you enjoyed the video!! There is plenty more in works!! Thanks, Again.
Your video was very well presented and most informative! Your narration was also quite noteworthy, direct, interesting and understandable. I also appreciate that no music or robotic voiceovers were used in the production of your video! Thanks for sharing it!
Hi DavidDawson. Thanks for the great feedback. I'm glad you enjoyed the video!! Thanks for watching!!
Great little “mini-doc”, thanks putting it together. I have a brass model of one of these oddities, and had often wondered how the strange wheel arrangement came about.
Hi struck2soon. Thanks for watching!!
On the Great Northern, the steamer you get, after all the mechanical shenanigans have been done, is a low-drivered tractor that has to stay close to a water plug despite having one or two water cars behind the tender and whose boiler was better used under a mike than a simple articulated. GN’s 2-6-8-0’s were mechanical wonders for the simple fact that no two of them were alike. They did a fine job up on Minnesota’s iron range though which is not an easy place to work for humans or machines.
The main endearing feature of articulated engines to railroads was crew elimination by avoiding double heading. Added low speed tractive effort was just frosting on the cake. Cool video on an obscure wheel arrangement.
hi poowg2657. I agree completely. Thanks for watching!!
Maybe not a big success but, as I see it, the big shame was in NOT preserving one of these for railroad enthusiasts to treat their eyes to in viewing such a Goliath of a creation!
Thanks for the video. I had never heard of these before.
Hi tommaclary. I wasn't aware of it either until a few months ago while researching a different topic. It was definitely a story worth telling. Thanks for watching!!
love the video. I built my own in HO scale starting from a 2-6-6-2.
Hi bobsbasementhotrains3020. Thank you for the compliment. That's a cool idea converting a 2-6-6-2 to a 2-6-8-0.
They were a very interesting type for their uniqueness. In terms of wheel arrangement a 7th driving axle without sacrificing weight forward. In terms of jointed boiler a much more straightforward forward section comparred with almost literally every other example of the type. In terms of longevity probably a credit to the GN shops as well as the first two points.
Everyone loves a kitbash!
Absolutely!!! Thanks for watching!!
I love it!
Nice video, thank you. One quibble: at the start while talking about converting consolidations, you are showing the mikado final conversion. I was going "Can't he tell the difference between a mike and a consol?" 😄
Hi delurkor. You're right. That was an oversight on my part. Thanks for watching and thanks for keeping me honest!!
@@americansteamlegacy-yh9dr 👍
That was fantastic and very informative. Thank you so much!😊
Hi TwistedMacGyversTrains. Thank you for the kind words!! Deeply appreciated!!
I see you're a Lionel train guy too. That's Awesome!!!
Lionel is my first love! Please keep posting these wonderful videos.😊
@@TwistedMacGyversTrains Lionel was my first love also. I've been collecting post-war Lionel for about 20+ years now. It all started with my Dad's trains when I was a kid, then I started collecting in my late 20's. Thank you for your support and wonderful comments!!!
Just subscribed!
Epic video! 😎
Hi mamarussellthepie3995. Thank you for subscribing and I'm glad you enjoyed the video!!
Keep making these videos! This is great!
Hi Thej611. Thank you for the encouragement!!! There are more coming, so stay tuned!! Thanks for the compliment!!
I heard of this in a train magazine. Don't remember which one though.
Hi aidensypolt. I wish I could help you with that because I'd like to read the article myself!! Thanks for watching!!
Never knew of this experiment. Very interesting. Thanks!
Hi wjsj69. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching!!
imagine if the "conversion" versions had worked out or got their issues solved, it may have had huge knock on effect, with many railroads (like the PRR and Rio Grande) previously having built a ton of 2-8-0s that were rapidly becoming a liability, if the conversion would have worked out then hundreds (if not a thousand or two) locomotives would have had an extension on life (of sorts) turning "useless" engines into solid revenue earners once again on the cheap, one would wonder if this would potentially have another knock on effect with these railroads, would they now put all their faith in articulation or would they still continue building future locomotives with single wheelsets like the 2-10-2 and so on?
That's a great question. If someone had resolved the issues with the 2-6-8-0, especially the simple variant, it could have given a lot old Mike's a new lease on life.
During this time period, railroads either adopted the 2-10-2 or articulated power. It was one or the other. I'm not sure if the 2-6-8-0 would have made them believers in articulated locomotives, but it is possible. Assuming the 2-6-8-0 was made into a viable design.
@@americansteamlegacy-yh9dr I mean, personally, I wouldn't mind the railroads continuing development of the 2-10-2 anyway (because I'm a sucker for more diverse line ups) but there could also be another knock on effect of this 'early' explosion in mallets causing railroads to build bigger infrastructure, which would actually be beneficial for them in the long run, even for the non-articulateds, if you have already upgraded your turntables to handle 2-6-8-0s then it wouldn't be an issue dealing with newer large rigid frame engines like (for example) 2-8-4 Berkshires.
There was a German built meter-gauge mallet type in Portugal: 2-4-6-0.
-it would look very nice if LGB started making them!
I used to see the GN M-2's leave Spokane for the Paloose and Moscow, ID. They could handle a good load too.
I envy you for having had the opportunity so see these engines in action!!
Why anyone would want to delete these engines and use something else is 100 percent most DEFINITELY BEYOND ME
I knew that the Great Northern O-8 class of 2-8-2 locos were rebuilt from Class M 2-6-8-0s. However, the fact that a bunch survived until about the end of steam on the GN shows that these engines were fine engines when not driven above 25 MPH. GN had several relatively short but tough helper sections and an engine that can push slow and hard would always be desirable. Despite all the rebuilding, the Class M cannot be called a "failure." To the GN, a failure was probably the 4-6-6-4 type (ironically), as both these 1937-built Class Z engines were shuffled off to SP&S by 1947. Also the entire Class L class of 2-6-6-2 Mallets were converted into O-5 and O-6 2-8-2 locos by 1925.
The interesting thing is that the Class N 2-8-8--0s largely worked in Minnesota pulling heavy iron ore trains, while the Class R-1 and R-2 2-8-8-2 locos worked mostly between Seattle and Havre. GN had a lot of articulated engines, despite never really adopting the 4-6-6-4 and never using 2-8-8-4 like competitor Duluth Missabe & Iron Range, or 4-8-8-4 like Union Pacific. Of course, by the middle of WWII, GN was sold on diesel-electric.
Hi pacificstudios. Thanks for sharing all that info. I agree that heavy helper service or slow drag freight were probably the best jobs for the 2-6-8-0. But given the low adhesion factor of the simpled versions....maybe not so much. I really appreciate your depth of knowledge on this topic and thanks for sharing!!!
@@americansteamlegacy-yh9dr As a child, Lines West by Charles Wood was my favorite book. The later histories of the GN had yet to be written. Not many photos of the Class M exist, but if memory serves, they spent most of their years on the Great Falls branch as simpled M-2 class. Concentrating one class of old but powerful engines on one secondary main line would make a lot of sense, as would leaving the work on the High Line to the most modern power, the P, R and S classes, and even the Q 2-10-2 machines from the early 1920s.
The GN had thousands of miles of almost flat track between Minnesota and Puget Sound with only a few mountain districts, a fact that pleased shareholders and made her the dominant company in the Northwest. That's why classes like O, P and even H 4-6--2 were front line power until the end. Her legacy is felt today on the BNSF balance sheet.
A real shame none of these locomotives were preserved. I could see why they were unpopular though, seems like you could fix a decent amount of the problems by putting a trailing axle under the rear. Seemed odd to me why they would convert older 2-8-0s into these things, it would probably have been better to just modify enough to put a rear axle and upgrade from there.
Hi Stooltoad5017. I agree. It is a shame none were preserved. As far as the conversions go, you're right, they probably would have been better off keeping the 2-8-0's as is. Thanks for watching!!
If I heard right, th GN converted their 2-6-8-0’s to simple engines, doing away with the compound design as originally delivered. Now the question I had, did they change out the front driver weights? As this would have been a real issue, for ride, locomotive weight, and excessive wear on the rails.
Hi John. To my knowledge there was no attempt to change out the front drivers or even the rear ones. Since they were rather small in diameter - 56 inches or so, get a fine tuned balance on such a small wheel was rather challenging. This may partially explain why the attempt was never made. Great question!! Thank you for your comment and thanks for watching!!
I dont think ive ever seen a dual drive engine with two different wheel configurstions
Hi nascarfan88ta. They weren't very common but there are several other examples other that the Baldwin "kit mallet's". Check out Part 4 of the Whyte Notation Series. There were 2 duplex locomotives with odd wheel configurations but they were built on rigid frames. Thanks for watching!!
It’s two six eight o’s not two six eight zeros
Hi mumumaaaah. Yes, that's typically how people say it. But, If I said it that way, it would be a matter of time before someone called me on it. Can't win....Oh well. But, thanks for watching!!
@@americansteamlegacy-yh9dr my name is Eddie not mumumaaaaah
Totally agree…historically it’s pronounced “O”
I doubt hard-bitten railroaders bothered about pronouncing 'mallet' in French. Besides, you still have it wrong.