I have two of these USRA based C&O locos numbered 875 and 1525. Have been able to find only one of these numbers.
Edit: still need to Confirm #875.
These beauties have nice proportions, husky yet not over long.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Have you tried the C&O Historical society? They do a pretty good job, above excellent compared to some others, and probably have what you are looking for.
This might help you:
http://www.daveayers.com/Modeling/CnO_Loco_Class.htm
An example: H-5 2-6-6-2 ALCO built in 1919 retired in 1952 20 Locomotives #1520-#1539
If you can locate this book it appears to have an image of the #875
I'm guessing the C810 is a mistype of C&O
Eugene L. Huddleston - 2002 - Technology & Engineering M. D. McCarter The heavy Santa Fe did not have many measurements in common ... Coll. H. H. Harwood, Jr. In this view of C810 light Mallet (2-6-6-2) No. 875. |
|
And this one:
by WD Edson - 1955
133, built in. December. To complete this part of the record, in January 1919, the first. 2-6-6-2 was built (C&O No. 875) and the first heavy 2-10-2 (C&EI No. 2007)
Lionel's 2-6-6-2 is a USRA mallet. The C&O had 20 of these originally numbered 875 to 894 and gave them their H5 class number. In 1924 they were renumbered to 1520 to 1539. There is a picture of 875 on page 144 of C&O Power. Lionel's model of 875 is pretty close to the prototype.
Ken
"These beauties have nice proportions, husky yet not over long."
I read not long ago that the 2-6-6-2 was the most common articulated wheel arrangement in N. America. Of course, that includes every variation, including narrow-gauge locos.
Yup. I love 'em. Better-looking than the C&O's home-grown 2-6-6-2's (which did serve as a starting point for the USRA design's basic specs and dimensions), and my second-favorite articulated of all (#1 is the SP AC9 Yellowstone - so long as it's not painted yellow and orange).
Lionel has even used them, with minor changes, to stand in fairly plausibly, if not accurately, for some other RR's 2-6-6-2's.
Thanks guys, glad to know the numbers have a basis in reality. My other sources only had that series locomotive with it's renumbered designation. These smaller scale size locos look so much better on 72" radius curves than my "A", EM-1, BB and H-8 which look best sitting on whisker tracks.
Tom Tee posted:Thanks guys, glad to know the numbers have a basis in reality. My other sources only had that series locomotive with it's renumbered designation. These smaller scale size locos look so much better on 72" radius curves than my "A", EM-1, BB and H-8 which look best sitting on whisker tracks.
Tom,
Even if the cab numbers were pure fantasy, if you like 'em just run 'em and enjoy them!
Bobby, thank you, trust me I would. These engines are perfect for my size curves.
Having a steam engine powered by electricity, running on rails that are too far apart- in somebodies basement, cycling through forward-neutral-reverse-neutral just to move forward again, a paralyzed engineer, engines sounds coming out of the tender......if one accepts this make believe stuff a fantasy number is nothing.
After all, arrested development can be it's own paradigm.
