2-8-8-2 SLSF 2006

Discussion in '2-8-8-2 Mallet' started by mike, Dec 8, 2001.

  1. mike

    mike Guest

    2-8-8-2 SLSF 2006 2-8-8-2 -1925

    2-8-8-2 SLSF 2006

    Birmingham, Alabama

    7/2/1925

    2558.jpg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
  2. Karl

    Karl 2008 Engineer of the Year Frisco.org Supporter

    The Summer 2015 issue of Classic Trains contains a marvelous picture taken by James Westby that is now in the collection of Louis Marre.

    http://ctr.trains.com/issues/2015/summer-2015

    I loved Mr. Marre’s comments about the Frisco malfunctioning Mallet 2-8-8-2 number SLSF 2006. The image was taken at Monett, MO on January 1, 1917. The scene harkens to Ozark shade-tree mechanics, and their penchant to fashion solutions to mechanical problems sans the proper work space.

    It would seem that the shop men have fabricated a hoist using everything save a “skyhook”. It is a great vignette! The apparent pristine condition of the pilot gives pause, and it makes me wonder if the SLSF 2006 was not involved in some low-speed mishap.

    At the time of the photograph Monett, MO had a 70-foot turntable. Locomotives that exceeded that length such as the Mallets and the newly arrived in 1916-1917 spot-class 2-10-2s were turned on the wye that connected with the line to Ft Smith, Arkansas. By May 1919, materials were on hand from Bethlehem Bridge to construct a 100-foot replacement turntable.

    I have often wondered about the much-repeated refrain in the railfan press that these locomotives were misfits, etc. The notion that these locomotives were inherently problem locomotives has not been supported with any evidence that warrants this conclusion.

    The Frisco gave the Mallets a Cooper’s rating of E-50, which was the same as 1040-class Pacifics, the SLSF 1281-1305 class Consolidations, and the SLSF 1306-1345 class Consolidations, which were in mainline use at the time. Thus, the Mallets were capable of working on all of the Frisco main routes and several branch lines.

    Indeed, it was their relatively light axle loading that permitted these engines to work the Birmingham-area coal branches once they were bumped from Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma lines by more modern power. Given the locomotives’ specification, they were well suited for dragging trains over the Ozark grades at speeds of 15-20 mph

    It is my opinion that this is the job that they performed until the arrival of the sixty Spot-class engines during 1916-1917, the thirty three USRA Light Mikados of 1919, and the thirty-five Baldwin heavy Mikados of 1923.

    The paradigm had shifted, and the Mallets were sent to work between Amory, Mississippi Birmingham, Alabama. Frisco employee magazines note that during 1915 the Mallets handled oil tank trains between Afton, OK and Sapulpa, OK, and other sources show the Mallets handling Southeast Kansas coal.

    While in the Birmingham area, the Frisco Employee Magazines report that these locomotives were handling trains from the “coal branches” of 60-70 cars at 70 tons each.

    The Frisco spent money to make betterments to these engines. Three of the locomotives, SLSF 2001, 2004, and 2007, received 39” piston valves on the low-pressure cylinders. The Street chain and bucket “after-market” stoker was replaced with an auger stoker, and during the mid to late 1920s, Lewis Draft Appliances were added to reduce back pressure.

    Ultimately, the effects of the depression and the addition of modern power doomed the Frisco Mallets, and not in my view, some sort of mechanical deficiency.

    As noted, the locomotives finished their careers in the Birmingham, AL area, and the Frisco retired them all by 1939. As might be expected, the locomotives that were equipped with the low pressure piston valves were the last to go.

    SLSF 2001 - Retired April 1939, Birmingham, AL.
    SLSF 2002 - Retired July 1935, Birmingham, AL.
    SLSF 2003 - Retired July 1935, Birmingham, AL.
    SLSF 2004 - Retired April 1939, Birmingham, AL.
    SLSF 2005 - Retired December 1929, Springfield, MO. Another source notes early 1928.
    SLSF 2006 - Retired July 1935, Birmingham, AL
    SLSF 2007 - Retired April 1936, Birmingham, AL
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
  3. gjslsffan

    gjslsffan Staff Member Staff Member

    I certainly have enjoyed reading this Karl, very well written, presented and organized.

    Thank you for doing the research and taking the time to post it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
    Sirfoldalot and Ozarktraveler like this.
  4. frisco1522

    frisco1522 Staff Member Staff Member

    I asked my Dad about them the first time I saw a photograph of one.

    He said he fired a couple of them and they leaked like sieves and were hard to see ahead in winter because of it.

    He hated the spot engines both firing and running.

    He said a funeral train of them went through Newburg, MO heading for Springfield, MO and the engine crews that were hanging around the depot lined up, cheered and clapped when they saw them.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
  5. William Jackson

    William Jackson Bill Jackson

    That is a very nice article, my grandfather started with Frisco as boilermaker.

    That probably was not much before the shop closed in Monett, MO. Then he went to the North Shop by Washington Street. Finally to the Springfield Diesel Shop.

    He had two brothers that worked at what he called the West Shops.

    I will get to the hobby shop and see who is in the photograph.

    Not much chance, but I had a ton of relatives that worked out of the Monett, MO shops, most did not move when it closed.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
  6. palallin

    palallin Member

    As I understand things, it was not mechanical, but design deficiency that doomed them.

    They were incapable of producing enough steam for the job required of them after the Drag Era wound down. Joe Collias reports delays while building up steam at the bottom of grades.

    This view fits well with the claim that more modern power replaced them. The more modern power had the steaming capacity.

    I wonder, had their steaming capacity been (expensively!) increased, would they, like the spot series, have been limited by balance problems.

    What works well enough a 15 mph, might not at 40 mph.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
  7. Karl

    Karl 2008 Engineer of the Year Frisco.org Supporter

    A problem that I have discovered with some railfan publications are the lack of citations provided/

    Consequently what gets stated in one work will often be stated in another publication. The source of the reference is never known, but yet it gets used as truth.

    When purchased, there were very few locations capable of turning the locomotive, and as noted in the TRAINS article and in a 1919 Annual Report, Monett, MO did not have a turntable capable of turning the 1910-built locomotive until 1919.

    In 1907, the longest turntables on the Frisco were 70'. The Mallets needed a turntable of at least 86'

    I have been suspicious of the steaming capabilities cited by some, because when I plug the locomotives heating surface numbers, cylinder size, etc. into some general demand formulas, nothing seems to be amiss. There are all sorts of old steam texts on google books.

    One has to wonder if the reports of steaming issues were related to keeping a hand-fired locomotive against the peg. The Mallets had a sizable 75.3 square foot grate area.

    Based on my reading, I believe that they were fit-for-purpose machines and very capable of hauling freight up Ozark grades at 15-25 mph while in compound mode. I could not find any ETT dictated speed restrictions on the Mallets. However, the ETTs placed a 35 mph limit on the spot class engines.

    During 1916-1917, they were made immediately obsolete with the arrival of the spot class 2-10-2s. During the 1920s, the addition of the Lewis Draft Appliance, as noted in one of the FEMs, and addition of the piston valves on the low pressure cylinders speaks to the confidence that the railroad had in these locomotives.

    The arrival of the Mikados during the 1920s put the Mallets and the 2-10-2s out to pasture.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
  8. palallin

    palallin Member

    Well, if it was steaming capacity, they were hardly the only ones. The Erie Triplexes are another example, so I understand.

    Can a 75.3 square foot grate area supply enough to meet the demand?

    How does it compare , with, say the spots?

    The Mikes?

    The Northerns?

    In any case, 15 - 25 mph was no longer meeting the need.

    What coincided with the Mikes' success, or perhaps, what caused the Mikes to be ordered was the shift from drag thinking to shorter, more numerous, faster trains.

    This far I think we can trust Collias because the phenomenon was common throughout the railroading of the time.

    The variables are:
    - Philosophy of the railroad
    - Capabilities of the engines
    - Demands of the customers
    - Capacities of the fixed plant
    - Competing shipping methods

    Which drove which?

    There is a cycle, perhaps, of an incremental change here or there influencing all the others until the paradigm shifts.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
  9. yardmaster

    yardmaster Administrator Staff Member Administrator Frisco.org Supporter

    Karl,

    As always, a fascinating read and a meticulously researched and thought-out article.

    I cannot remember reading if some of latter-day improvements to the Mallets included lengthening the tenders concurrent with the lengthen turntables. Seems I did read that the Mallets as delivered has woefully inadequate tender sizes due to the smaller turntables. Therefore, a good deal of time had to be spent stopping for fuel and water.

    If the tenders were never enlarged, then it sure seems like an operational deficiency rather than a mechanical one.

    It also makes me wonder why, if the Mallets had to be turned on the wye at Monett and presumably other locations, why did not they make the tenders larger to begin with?

    I have often thought that, if baseball has SABR, then domestic railroads should have SARR. Or at least SFRR (Society of Frisco Railroading Research).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
    Sirfoldalot and Ozarktraveler like this.
  10. palallin

    palallin Member

    I do not have my references with me at the moment.

    Do we know the heating surface for the Mallets?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
    Sirfoldalot and Ozarktraveler like this.
  11. frisco1522

    frisco1522 Staff Member Staff Member

    I tried to post a photograph of the 2-8-8-2 SLSF 2001, new in a train on her way to the Frisco from American Locomotive Company (ALCO).

    No matter what I did with the size, it still will not upload, says the image is too big.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
  12. Karl

    Karl 2008 Engineer of the Year Frisco.org Supporter

    I think there is a dimensional limit as well.

    It cannot exceed x by y pixels.

    Try resizing.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
  13. yardmaster

    yardmaster Administrator Staff Member Administrator Frisco.org Supporter

    Only data I have per Joe Collias' Frisco Power.

    Cylinders: 39" x 30" front, 24.5" x 30" rear
    Drive Wheel Diameter: 57"
    Boiler Pressure: 200 pounds
    Grate Area: 75.3 square feet
    Weight: 418,000 pounds
    Tractive Force: 100,000 simple, 83,500 compound
    Tender Capacity: 16 tons, 8,000 gallons.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
    modeltruckshop and Sirfoldalot like this.
  14. frisco1522

    frisco1522 Staff Member Staff Member

    2-8-8-2 SLSF 2001

    2001 New B-W.jpg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
  15. gjslsffan

    gjslsffan Staff Member Staff Member

    That is a brute!

    I like it even with all the short comings, talk about short, that tender does not seem to match the locomotive.

    Another curiosity for me is the square valve gear on the lead engine and the round on the rear.

    Is that swing help, or is it switching?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
    modeltruckshop and Sirfoldalot like this.
  16. Karl

    Karl 2008 Engineer of the Year Frisco.org Supporter

    The Mallet boilers were the first Frisco engines to have a combustion chamber (6 feet).
    mallet_boiler_rag_Vol49_V2.jpg
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2019
    modeltruckshop and Sirfoldalot like this.
  17. Karl

    Karl 2008 Engineer of the Year Frisco.org Supporter

    One of the notions, which I wanted to convey with regard to the grate area, and by extension the total locomotive evaporative heating surface (EHS), is that given the 2001 EHS, it would have been difficult for a single locomotive fireman to manually fire one of the Frisco Mallets.

    Volume 55 of the Railway Age Gazette offers an interesting discussion determining the maximum tractive effort (TE) for a given speed, and to what extent is that TE value limited by the firing rate.

    The article presents a table which I have reproduced graphically and a chart, which provide some approximations for firing rates. It assumes the use of southeast Kansas and southwest Missouri Pennsylvanian High Volatile Bituminous A coal. This coal had a heat content of 10,310-12,695 BTU per pound. Remember, it is always about the geology.

    The chart indicates that one pound of that coal could evaporate approximately 10.05 -11.7 pounds of water per square foot of EHS per hour, or 43,932 - 51,145 lbs equating to 5268 gallons - 6132 gallons of water per hour.

    The second table indicates that an EHS 4371.4 would require about 7300 pounds of coal per hour to evaporate that much water. The most commonly seen figure in the period literature is that a hand-fired rate 5000 pounds per hour is a maximum.

    So when working all out, the Mallet’s fireman would be hard pressed to keep things hot. Chris is correct, the original Mallet tenders’ carried 10 tons of coal and 9100 gals of water, a second source said 8000 gallons.

    At those rates, the locomotive would not miss a water plug or coal chute.

    firing_rate_2001.jpg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
  18. frisco1522

    frisco1522 Staff Member Staff Member

    I never see a mention of the first Frisco Mallet, No. 2000.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
    Sirfoldalot and Karl like this.
  19. Karl

    Karl 2008 Engineer of the Year Frisco.org Supporter

    An elusive beast to be sure.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
    modeltruckshop and Sirfoldalot like this.
  20. Sirfoldalot

    Sirfoldalot Frisco.org Supporter Frisco.org Supporter

    Kind of like the E8A SLSF 2009 "Jet Pilot"?

    By the way Karl and others,

    Really enjoyed this!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2024
    modeltruckshop likes this.

Share This Page