Restored Challenger

Discussion in 'Getting Started' started by Mountain Man, Aug 26, 2007.

  1. Mountain Man

    Mountain Man Active Member

    Well...I saw it! Yesterday, to a mighty blast of the unmistakable sounds of a steam whistle instead of the bleat of an air horn, the rewstored Challenger thundered past us at the Palmer Lake crossing en route to the Pueblo State Fair.

    What a sight! Sadly, it may not be seen again.
  2. N Gauger

    N Gauger 1:20.3 Train Addict

    ... and you have pictures... uhh right????

    You Did take pictures... didn't you????

    Oh man - I have a bad feeling about this........
  3. eightyeightfan1

    eightyeightfan1 Now I'm AMP'd

    Me too Mikey...
    Must've been one of those" By the time I got to the car to get the camera...It was gone"...Kinda thing.
    How many times has that happened to any of us.
  4. N Gauger

    N Gauger 1:20.3 Train Addict

    Ohh You're a member of "that" club too????? I'm overrrr herrrrreeee....and the camera's WAY OVER TherrrrrrrrrrE!!!!!! wall1wall1wall1wall1wall1

    Yup - Been There - Done that - - Got the T-shirt!!!! :eek::eek::eek::eek:
  5. nkp174

    nkp174 Active Member

    Ah, that's why some people will pay huge $$$$ to have "period" photo shoots in which actors are hired in period clothing and old cars are rented in order to stage a vintage steam performance. It sounds kind of cool, but not worth it to me...unless it happens to be either the Eureka & Palisades #4, DSP&P (DL&G) 191, or the John Bull...then it would be cool...especially the period horses instead of cars ;-)
  6. sumpter250

    sumpter250 multiscale modelbuilder

    If we're talking a UP challenger, 3985, I shot it with a manual advance SLR. I got an approach shot, a broadside, and a departure shot, and that was going as fast as I could............which was considerably slower than the challenger was going! Sort of...'s-coming-'s-here-'s-gone! or perhaps just wwhooshhh !!!! The exhaust sound of the four cylinders was not a "chuff" it was a roar.
  7. bigsteel

    bigsteel Call me Mr.Tinkertrain

    man,i wish we had big power runnin in the midwest! we can only look at huge power.but there very close to being running again...

    i heard a 2-6-6-6 when i was a boy,and your correct,there is no "chuff" anymore.its a solid roar of horsepower! totally freakin awesome! sadly it was going to the scrap,not pullin a freight...:cry:--josh
  8. Cannonball

    Cannonball More Trains Than Brains

    Ah, crud!
    I think that was supposed to come through KC and I may have missed it!

    :( :( :(
  9. sumpter250

    sumpter250 multiscale modelbuilder

    Regardless of where, or why it was going, if you heard it, you have a memory that I will never have........unless I win one of the biggest lotteries, and can then afford to restore one of the two remaining H-8s.
    Oh how I would love to couple an H8, and a Class A back to back, and see which one would drag the other away, wheels slipping through the sand, the air filled with the sound of articulated steam power, and scented with coal smoke and steam!!!
  10. nkp174

    nkp174 Active Member

    While sadly I don't think I'll ever see it either...I can tell you the result:
    The 2-6-6-6 would practically rip the 2-6-6-4 off the track. And here is why: The Class A's had a terrible factor of adhesion while the 2-6-6-6s were fine. Both were awesome steam locomotives with distinct advantages in specific areas...the Class A's were order to try to help this, a limited cutoff modification was performed on them but they still were slick. On the other hand, a Class A would be a much smarter engine to restore as it can drag huge trains through places the 2-6-6-6s could never go.

    If only the Claytor brothers had lived longer...we'd still have the 1218 and 611 under steam then :cry:
  11. bigsteel

    bigsteel Call me Mr.Tinkertrain

    i didn't think about it like that sumpter,i guess I'm kinda lucky to have heard it at all! and that would be one hell of a show ya thought up there! it sounds like you day dreamed about this for some time...:mrgreen: --josh
  12. bigsteel

    bigsteel Call me Mr.Tinkertrain

    ill support my C&O and agree with nkp174 on this one,the alleghany would destroy the class A If the couplers didnt break :mrgreen:.but either way,id restore'em both :twisted: --josh

    oh and another match,there both similar: pulling long drags,on tight branches and BIG.and H-6 verses a Class A...who will win,only you can decide!
  13. nkp174

    nkp174 Active Member

    Yep, that could happen!

    I see you are a fellow Cincinnatian! I love the picture of the C&O 490 parked at Union Terminal...while it was still an F-19 pacific. The Cincinnati RR Club has a print of it in their library.
  14. bigsteel

    bigsteel Call me Mr.Tinkertrain

    i just noticed your a cincinnatian too! i too have seen the print in the RR club but my favorite is a print i have of C&O's steam turbine electric.its similar to my avatar.--josh
  15. sumpter250

    sumpter250 multiscale modelbuilder

    Class A 2-6-6-4; weight,573,000 pounds; Tractive effort, 114,000 pounds; Driver dia. 70", stroke, 30".
    H-6 2-6-6-2 weight,449,000 pounds; Tractive effort, 77,900 pounds; Driver dia. 56", stroke, 32".
    The greater weight, and tractive effort (even though "slippery"), of the Class A, would appear to give the "A" the advantage over the H-6
    Allegheny,H-8 2-6-6-6 weight, 753,000 pounds (Virginian version) 778.000 pounds (# 1600-1644), 751,000 pounds (#1645-1659); Tractive effort (with 67" drivers) 110,200 pounds; stroke 33". Here, the reported sipperyness of the "A" would most likely make the H-8 the winner.
    Think about this for a minute.....couplers break? Yes, it could happen, one chance in infinity, is "possible", but even with sand, a locomotive generally will slip before the coupler breaks. That's what double heading is haul a train too heavy for one loco to pull. If drawbar pull becomes an issue, helper service runs mid train, or pushing from the back end.
    Actually, Josh, yes I have. The Allegheny is a good looking, massively powerful, and heavy locomotive. Weights given, by the way, are loco weight, and do not include tender. On that note, the "BigBoy" was 772,000 pounds, and had a tractive effort of 135,375 pounds...two extra sets of drivers to distribute pulling weight on does make a difference.
  16. nkp174

    nkp174 Active Member

    Sumpter, you obviously have a thing for cool articulateds...whether 3' gauge 2-6-6-2s or the really big stuff.

    Weight on drivers is the key. The other thing that makes a big difference in comparing the 2-6-6-6s to anything is that the published values for the 2-6-6-6s' weights are too low. One of the greatest mysteries is how heavy they actually were. They were grossly overweight so Lima fudged the scale house is quite reasonable to presume that they were actually the largest engines ever...we'll just never know until someone weighs one of them. The one thing for certain is the UP Big Boys don't come close to measuring up for power...either in Tractive effort to numerous other articulateds or in horsepower (which the 2-6-6-6s run away with). The DM&IR M-4s beat the Big Boys in both categories.

    But there is another caveat to the tug-of-war...the driver size and cylinder stroke. No locomotive has an even HP or TE at all speeds...they vary by speed. I don't know how a engines with the same Factor of Adhesion would compare in terms of starting horsepower. The coolest thing about the Alleghenies is that their peak horsepower occurs at a higher speed than other articulateds. This doesn't really help in the Tug of we care about starting horsepower.

    If we wanted to compare the 3985 to anything (since that's the thread), we'd use 2-10-4s. The C&O T-1s certainly make a nice comparison. doesn't mention their bosters, but I recall that they had them in the Lima Book...which gave them a high TE with booster, The same size of drivers, a very comparable Factor of Adhesion. Both were very handsome engines. I don't remember their peak horsepower or any other details.
  17. Triplex

    Triplex Active Member

    I still have difficulty thinking of 2-leading-wheel engines as high-speed designs. The Allegheny, however, was a design more suited to fast freight than the coal drags it usually hauled.
  18. CRed

    CRed Member

    Give me a DM&IR Yellowstone any day,love those things!When I go to the train museum here in Duluth I just get a feeling of complete awe looking at the one they have.And to think they were still working a few years before I was born and I just missed them.

    I am completely miffed as to why no one has made a plastic model of one.Every thread I have ever read about a model people would like to see in plastic,the DM&IR M4 Yellowstone is mentioned often.

  19. bigsteel

    bigsteel Call me Mr.Tinkertrain

    sumpter,i meant that sinc the engines are pulling AGAINST each other,that much force i figured may break the couplers,but i could be wrong.but this is turning into a cool thread! i think we all agree that it would be pretty cool to see lets say big boy VS yellow stone,alleghany VS class A,challenger VS alleghany,2-6-6-2 VS class A,and any other big locos duke it out to find out who really is the best at what they do! either way they'd still be AWESOME engines and id love to see'um all!--josh
  20. nkp174

    nkp174 Active Member

    That is because of the high speed two wheel lead truck. If I recall, it was developed by Lima (if not, it was the AMC). Prior to that their were limitations on running 2-x-x at speeds. Afterwards, it wasn't an issue. I know for a fact that a certain 2-8-4 with such a lead truck has pulled 34 passenger cars at 85mph through the mountains. Interestingly, the ride was actually smoother at 85mph than it is at 50mph. That "stunt" occurred at the "request" of a railroad official.

    Therefore, I have no problem thinking of 2-wheel lead trucks as long as it was a modern design. I'd be very scared of riding a LS&MS 2-6-2 on the 20th century limited.

    The biggest advantage that a modern 4-x-x had over a 2-x-x was that the first 2 axles bear the brunt of the wear and tear. A challenger won't wear its #1 drivers as quickly as a C&O T-1...despite their very similar specs.

    Edit: I do agree that couplers get broken sometimes, although I also agree that it is rare. We'll all just have to wait for the DM&IR Yellowstones to come out in Die Cast from MMI. We also could use some Die Cast UP 4-12-2s (my favorite UP cool)

Share This Page