Why didn't the 2-6-6-2 loco configuration have a name?

Looking at the MR ad for the Bachmann 2-6-6-2 locomotive (which is a very nice looking locomotive, and one of my favorite configuration), I noticed they had to kinda dance around the fact that this configuration lacks a 'class name' like Atlantic, Mountain, Prairie, etc. Since there were quite a few 2-6-6-2 around (>900), I wonder why this type didn't get a name (looking at my "Guide To North American Steam Locomotives, it seems the 2-8-8-2 also didn't get a name - were Articulated locomotive classes usually not given names, and where they the only ones besides switchers: 0-6-0s and 0-8-0s?)

Well, some 2-6-6-2's sort of did get a name. A particular style was invented by a man named Antoine Mallet (Mal-lay), IIRC. So, sometimes, they are called "Mallets". Unfortunately, so where all other compound articulated locos made after the Mallet design, no matter the wheel arrangement.

My guesses as to why the 2-6-6-2 as a class didn't get a nickname is that they weren't really all that many of them compared to other types, and they certainly weren't as widespread (as compared to, say, 4-6-2's).

Also, they weren't in the limelight all that much. Most of the named engines were all a point of pride to the RR's that had them, and slow lumbering 2-6-6-2's and co. aren't exactly great public relations, nor do they have the raw power that later, bigger engines had.

They also weren't totally unique by one manufacturer, either. Shays, Climaxes, and Heislers were named after the company that made and invented them. 2-6-6-2's were made by several companies.

At least, those are my theories...

The C&O simply called the 2-6-6-2 "Mallet"

Source: steamlocomotive.com: "The C&O also had a new design for its coal drag operations -- the 2-6-6-2 "Mallet". These were the H class locos
H1-H6.
On the Great Northern, they were Class L.

2-6-6-2T Two examples built by Baldwin for the Uintah RR (#50, #51) in 1926-28 (later sold to Sumpter Valley) were the largest narrow gauge locomotives ever built.
2-6-6-2 1906: Great Northern; Last: 1949: C&O

Source: Trains.com

"Baltimore & Ohio was not the only railroad to quickly embrace articulated power. In 1906, Great Northern took delivery of five 2-6-6-2s for operation on its lines in the Cascade Mountains of Washington State. Built by Baldwin, they were the first locomotives with this wheel arrangement — a logical outgrowth of the 0-6-6-0. The two-wheel engine truck gave the engine better riding stability than an 0-6-6-0, and the two-wheel trailing truck helped support the weight of the firebox.

Many more 2-6-6-2s were built in the first decades of the 20th century, with successive locomotives incorporating various design improvements. After 1910, superheating became standard. The firebox was moved behind the rear driving wheels and supported by an outside bearing radial trailer truck. Combustion chambers were added. The locomotive grew in size.

Several railroads ordered 2-6-6-2s, including Chesapeake & Ohio, Norfolk & Western, Northern Pacific, Milwaukee Road, Western Pacific, Rio Grande, and Wheeling & Lake Erie.

Nevertheless, the 2-6-6-2 was a drag freight engine, not capable of speeds above 20 or 25 mph. As a result, its application was limited to low-speed, heavy-hauling tasks.

In 1909, three years after the 2-6-6-2 appeared, the 2-8-8-2 Mallet locomotive was introduced. Its subsequent evolution paralleled that of the 2-6-6-2. The 2-8-8-2 offered all the advantages of the 2-6-6-2, and also produced greater tractive effort.

Heavy freight assignments soon went to the bigger Mallet, or to large simple non-articulated engines that were then being developed. The 2-6-6-2 was then relegated to niche roles filling assignments for which it was best suited, such as mine runs.

After 1920, only Chesapeake & Ohio ordered new 2-6-6-2s. On other railroads, the type was obsolete. In 1949, Chessie received the final ten 2-6-6-2s built, which also happened to be Baldwin’s last U.S. steam locomotive delivery.

Overall, about 1,300 2-6-6-2 locomotives were built for use in North America.

One location where the 2-6-6-2 proved popular was in the woods. A number of western logging companies used both tender and tank versions to power log trains headed for its mills. These oil-burning engines were much smaller than their mainline cousins but were ideal timber haulers. Their high adhesion and articulated frames gave them the ability to handle sizeable trains over curving and lightly built track. Many of those locomotives lasted well into the diesel era."

I read once that a railroad may have called a 2-6-6-2 an articulated Prairie and the 2-8-8-2 an articulated Mikado because they had twice the drivers of a prairie and mikado. Joe G.

I'm going to move this question to the Steam Locomotive Forum, some folks may be interested in this topic there, too.

-ot-tt-tt-to-

Southern Pacific's prefixes for their locomotive class names were at least sometimes mnemonic. Their first 2882 were, I think, built with compound cylinders, in the original Mallet configuration, and were, I think, classed as MCx (where x is the number of the particular class). When they were converted to simple expansion, and new 2882 locomtives were built with simple expansion, they were classed ACx. I **think** these stood for "Mallet Consolidation" and "Articulated Consolidation". (To complicate things, they went on to use the same AC prefix for their later 4882 and 2884 locomotives.
Other railroads, such as the PRR and the B&O, without givin articulateds type NAMES, gave them class designations that combined the wheel-arrangement codes that the two "halves" would have gotten as separate locomotives. Thus, for example, on the PRR Consolidations (280) were classed Hx and eight-wheel switchers Cx, and their mammoth experimental 2880 articulated was an HC-1. (A 460 on the PRR was a Gx, so they similarly named their 4664 design a GG-1, but that gets us away from steam locomotives....)

[quote="Allen Hazen"] Other railroads, such as the PRR and the B&O, without givin articulateds type NAMES, gave them class designations that combined the wheel-arrangement codes that the two "halves" would have gotten as separate locomotives. Thus, for example, on the PRR Consolidations (280) were classed Hx and eight-wheel switchers Cx, and their mammoth experimental 2880 articulated was an HC-1. (A 460 on the PRR was a Gx, so they similarly named their 4664 design a GG-1, but that gets us away from steam locomotives....)[/quote]

There was, I believe, 1 HH1, a 2-8-8-2 of course; and a small group of CC1 and (I think) CC2 0-8-8-0's. PRR wasn't much into articulated locomotives. The later 4 cylinder types (S1, Q1, Q2, T1) weren't articulated. Apparently PRR viewed 8 or 10 drivers as just 8 or 10 drivers, even though driven by two separate sets of cylinders and rods.

Bob Netzlof

This is a Very Interasting History Lesson Thank You Sir Ray for posting it also this maybe a Dumb ? Why did the W&LE have 2-6-6-2's in the Midwest?

AmtrakFan

AmtrakFan wrote:This is a Very Interasting History Lesson Thank You Sir Ray for posting it also this maybe a Dumb ? Why did the W&LE have 2-6-6-2's in the Midwest?

AmtrakFan

I've always equated 2-6-6-2s (and 2-8-8-2s too, I suppose), with low speed, high power, drag freights that have lower axle loadings (good for the coal and lumber trains they predominated on). Maybe W&LE wanted to run long drag freights at low speed on kinda lightweight track?

My recollection is that the W&LE had some heavy coal traffic, and southern Ohio does have hills.
Basically, though, you have to remember that steam locomotives were custom-designed for particular applications, so that many railroads had a small number of locomotives, acquired for particular, localized, duties, that can seem "out of character" with the railroad's general image. The New York Central had a few mallets, used for hump pusing and transfer work!

Keep your eyes out for the september 2004 issue of Trains magazine.

Supposedly there is an article "Big-Boy or Big-Mistake" How super power steam made it easier for diesels to sweep the land...

as a bonus

Super Power Diesels, and why they don't work either..


Remember, these articles are of the point of view of one person, who may or may not necessarily be a railroader..

But, being that the Big Boy (a rather large Mallet) is part of the topic of discussion, I would think it would of interest to the group here.

Keep your eyes open....

Allen,
I, for one, am impressed with your knowledge of US steam. Ever heard of Hazen, Arkansas? A fascintating, anachronistic, little town. I have a few pics of it. Will email, if you are interested. [email protected].
Denis

No Big Boy wasnt really a Mallet seeings it was a simple and not a compound.Plus the guy giving the story is one Ed King who worked for the greatest steam railroad(well production of locomotive wise )in the land.Mr K goes into great detail telling why the Big Boy and a lot of Super Power locos just didnt work for what they were bought for.Wasted horsepower cause they never got to the optimal speed to put it to work.He also shows which roads got it right which two of them NKP and N&W doesnt surprise me.Plus the Chicago Great Western owned a few 2-6-6-2's they were used for power and the fact they spread their weight(the whole reason SD's were first produced)on shaky track structure.

The big boy was NOT a mallet. It had its own set of cylinders and steam supply. It was all supplied from ONE boiler.

Mallets have a low pressure and a high pressure cylinder. Which cylinder steam is admitted to first, I forget, but I would probably assume the high pressure, which had a bigger cylinder. Then the steam would travel through a pipe to the other set of cylinders, which were smaller, but used less pressure to push the pistons. This is why they called these compound articulateds.

The Big Boy, Challenger (UP 3985), and other articulateds which are simple articulateds merely have a single steam source (unless they had two boilers which was attempted at one time -- by which railroad, i'm not sure.)

I'm a big fan of articulateds, whether they be mallets or a simple articulated.

I plan to build a gauge one live steamer with a 2-4-4-2 arrangement someday when i get the money to buy the kits and then kitbash them. Should be fun. It will more likely be a simple articulated, but hey, there's always room for experimentation!

Union Pacific 3985 stopped in St. Louis this past January as part of its super bowl special. It's a great looking locomotive and the crew puts so much effort in taking care of it. They even had a pipe failure here in St. Louis, and stayed an EXTRA 5 days in st. louis to repair this pipe (it was a siphon pipe -- carries water from the injector to the boiler). They didn't cut the trip short and haul the loco home by diesel.

Mike

Sorry, Insane, but you have your cylinder sizes backward; also, the one boiler comment doesn't wash. I doubt that any steam locomotives were built with more than one boiler. (Ships are another story.)

In a compound, the steam goes into the smaller high pressure cylinders first. After the steam has done its useful work in those cylinders, it expands and enters the larger low pressure cylinders, then is exhausted to atmosphere.

The reason that the low pressure cylinders are larger is simple; force equals pressure times area. To get an equal amount of work out of the steam exhausted by the HP cylinders, the LP cylinders have to be larger, with a larger piston area for the steam to push against.

Some ships even had three (triple expansion) or four (quadruple expansion) sets of cylinders. Turbines often have multiple stages, or there are two turbines coupled to a common reduction gear.
Even the Titanic was a compound; the outboard engines were, IIRC, triple expansion, and they exhausted to a turbine on the center shaft. The turbine, in turn, exhausted its steam back to the condenser, where it became feedwater again.