# We've got the Beauty, now what about the Beast?



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

There is no doubt the Mason Bogie is a beautiful locomotive. It took a
long time since the original MLS posting, and it required a lot of effort
by a number of members of this site, but I believe this was all worth
it and within months many of you will see the 2-6-6 running on their
pike. One thing is pretty certain, the success of this project cannot
be repeated, and, probably, there is also no need for this. With the
K-36 released, the EBT-12 in the design phase, possible new versions
of the Mason Bogie, maybe some logging stuff hiding out there, there
may be very little appetite left for anything else. There are just so
many choices, and I am exclusively talking about narrow gauge here.
However, apart from the Beauty, there is this one narrow gauge US
locomotive which is the Ultimate One. The Beast, the only other
articulated engine ever to run on the US narrow gauge lines. I am sure
you know what I am talking about. Now, remember the fever around the
Cab-Forward? And the reversing lever war? Do you as a NG guy always
want to shy away from the SG crowd;-)?? There is just one way for
those of us who believe that Narrow Gauge Rules to measure up with the
standard gauge crowd and that is to consider the Beast. Obviously,
this would not be a cheap locomotive, in fact this would be the most
expensive narrow gauge locomotive ever, at a price above the NGG16
Garratt. For a number of reasons such as its size, articulation,
etc... In other words, I am talking about an exclusive, High End
locomotive, with axle pump(s), side tanks holding water, possibly with an 
additional, functional water or water/gas tender/tank(s) as per prototype!
The technology is all there, Accucraft has shown with the latest
releases that they can implement not only a beautiful body but an
impressive function as well. In short, this locomotive would just need
to be done right, as, if it happens, it will only happen once - there
is simply no other NG prototype ever to be considered by Accucraft,
greater than the Beast. So here is the challenge and a big question.
Do you want the Beast (in your lifetime)? This may be your only chance
to say it. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


----------



## s-4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Uintah 50/51 in 1:20.3? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UintahRailway50.jpg


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Zubi
We aren't talking secret code or project...the beast of NG is the Uintah 50/51 in 1:20.3. This would be impressive as it would scale out against the other NG locomotives for a proper perspective.
Given the overload of projects at Accucraft it would take a "big" push like that of the Mason to get it done, along with a economical upturn.


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

You guys got the "Beauty and the Beast" story all wrong. The Uintah 50/51 is the handsome prince. Accucraft already released the beast.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

YES, Zubi


----------



## Anthony Duarte (Dec 27, 2007)

Working steam pumps on the front would be jaw dropping.
Whether or not I would buy one would really depend on the price... I can't imagine ever spending more than 8k on a gauge 1 locomotive. At that price I'd rather invest in another 1" scale engine. Less then that though... it would be hard to resist.


----------



## s-4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Umm ya...if its going cost more than $2k... haha


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Anthony, I think it should be possible to make one for about $6000. Plus $600 for the (optional?) auxiliary water tank together with the axle pump. Dummy water tanks could be offered as rolling stock for $300. Perhaps the functional side tanks should be dropped for cost reasons - that could be expensive. The axle pump could then draw water directly from the auxiliary water tank. In this configuration there could also be a larger gas tank in the tender, switchable with the one on board. The good thing about this locomotive is its relatively straightforward design, which should also simplify the implementation in a live steam model. I am optimistic;-), Zubi


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Zubi
I would rather have "working" side tanks vs the auxiliary tender. One for water and one for gas. The cost would be the same as to add the extra tender (my guess). IMHO the locomotive is a bit complex in design given the articulated nature, two engines, would make a great alcohol fired engine using the bunker behind the cab (probably one of the side tanks for a longer run).!


Here is a general reference:

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/2-6-6-2/?page=ur 


The only operational example of this style of locomotive:
http://www.1880train.com/locomotive110.html 


This locomotive without auxiliary tender would be almost as big as the K36 (at least in length) and probably overall.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Charles, I entirely agree with you on the side tanks. This is a much more elegant solution and a prototypical one w/r to water. One huge benefit is that the water in the side tanks would be pre-heated which would contribute to more economic gas use and substantially longer running times with the same amount of gas. My only concern is that Accucraft never attempted this particular idea before. I have only one locomotive which has functional side tanks (both sides), the 2-6-2 by Gordon (Argyle) and this seemingly small functional detail makes a huge operational difference. It really is an extra dimension. The gas tank can be in the coal space. I think that the size of the locomotive is so substantial that this coal space would be more than sufficient for a 45min run. Especially if the side tanks were used to increase efficiency. One thing to remember in this context is that using pre-heated water from the side tanks would be more effective than heating up a huge volume of water and slowly boiling it down (as we do on the K class engines). So definitely, I definitely vote for the functional side tanks. Now all we need to do is the pushing part;-), Zubi


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

*Mallet Locomotive - pronounced "Mal - 'Let" here in the West. *


If you want a Unitah 50 or 51 narrow gauge Mallet locomotive you are wanting a locomotives built specifically to haul Gilsonite ore.:
Uintah Railway (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uintah_Railway ) 
"The company was founded in 1902 as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Gilson Asphaltum Co. with the sole purpose of building a railroad into the isolated Uintah basin where the Gilson Asphaltum Co. was operating several Gilsonite mines."


In 1926 the railroad purchased an articulated locomotive, #50, which was specifically designed to handle the extreme curvature and steep grades of Baxter Pass. The idea was that this new locomotive would do away with the need to change engines at Atchee and Wendella. After some initial modifications, this engine proved to be such a success that in 1928 the railroad purchased a sister locomotive, #51.
The railroad lasted until 1939 when trucks took over hauling the Gilsonite. At that time, the rails were pulled up and the towns abandoned. Most of the railway's locomotives were scrapped immediately; the two famous articulated were sold to the Sumpter Valley Railway in Oregon, and later went to Guatemala, where they were dismantled. " 



*If you want a logging narrow gauge Mallet locomotive would want a Sumpter Valley Railways, Oregon, locomotive.*


*Mallet's built by Baldwin Locomotive Co.* The Uintah Railway ran from Mack, CO to Watson and Rainbow, UT in 1903/04. This railroad ran through a rugged mountain range between these two points. The expense to keep its Shay Locomotives operating ate all of the profits of the company. Uintah Railway General manager decided new motive power was required. He had a specification for an Articulated engine. Articulation allowed longer boiler engine to run on the sharp curves encountered on most of the narrow gauge track. The larger boiler would provide the much needed power for steeper grades and heavy loads over sharp curved rails. Baldwin Locomotive Works was contacted about manufacturing this type engine. They refused until they examined the curves and grade Uintah was planning on using this engine on. Baldwin took the job and produced a superb locomotive. Articulation allowed the front powered trucks to move back and forth under the boiler. It also allowed this longer engine to pivot vertically. This vertical pivot allowed the 45 ft long engine to flow smoothly through sharp dips and rises. Even though this locomotive is called a "Mallet," it is not a true Mallet. a Mallet re uses the spent steam and this one dose not. 










*Sumpter Valley Railways: Sumpter Valley Mallet locomotives. 
*Reference: http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mydickfamily/locomotives_of_the_svrr.htm 










*Mallet s/n 59261.* This unit was delivered to the Uintah Railway Co. of Atchee, CO in June 1926. It was given the designator No. 50. It became the property of Sumpter Valley Railway, Baker, OR and was given the designation of #250. This unit was converted from coal to oil and the tanks that were mounted on the sides of the boiler were removed and the Tender from a Mikado #20 was attached to provide the water and oil by Sumpter Valley Railway. It operated in Sumpter Valley pulling the heavy log trains to the mills in Baker. Its period of operations was 1940 - 1947. At which time it was sold to International Railways of Central America retaining its designation as #250. This railway operates from Escuntla, Guatemala. Its period of use was 1947 - 1964. This unit has been scrapped.


*Mallet s/n 60407.* This unit was delivered to the Uintah Railway Co. of Atchee, CO in May 1928. It was given the designator No. 51. It became the property of Sumpter Valley Railway, Baker OR and was given the designation of #251. The same modification described above were done to this unit, Tender from Mikado #19 was attached. Sumpter Valley Railway used it from 1940 - 1947. Like its sister above, this unit was also sold to Guatemala. It operated from 1947 - 1962. It was taken out of service in 1962 and used for parts for #250. This unit was later scrapped. The picture below shows the Uintah Railway Co. #51 with its 2800 gallon side tanks attached to the side of the boiler. Photo is from 


*Not Built for Speed:
*- For our friends who’s passion is for locomotives achieving 200 mph(scale) locomotive land speed records there will be disappointment with the Sumpter Vallet Mallets or Mallet Locomotives in general: 
“…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.”


*- General:
*Mallets often proved to be too light for their load. Water tanks added to compensate and increase traction. Many Mallet type locomotives were converted from compounded to standard locomotive. Compunds proved too much trouble, time and money to maintain.
- More information on the 1,300 Mallets - pronounced "Mal - 'Let" here in the West. Classic Trains Magazine: http://www.trains.com/ctr/default.aspx?c=a&id=133 

- Listing of the Baldwin Logging Mallets: http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/list/list.htm 

- Everything you wanted to know about ‘Mallet Articulated Locomotives“ http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/mallet.Html

*Note:*
A Standard Gauge Mallet (1:32) would be more appealing to a broad customer base since these were used not only in logging but in general freight hauling by many railroads across the US. 



_*PS: The Beast is the PRR S1 Locomotive the largest steam locomotive ever built.*_


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Chris, this thread is about narrow gauge only. In fact it is only about Uintah Mallets in live steam (SV conversion is OK too). Anyway, thanks for the info. Uintah was de facto a common carrier, so they carried people, live stock, post, etc. Even bricks concealed as post parcels;-)... Plus, they carried a lot of water in the auxiliary tanks... Best, Zubi


----------



## Jeff Williams (Jan 8, 2008)

Please check my research and calculations, but it appears to me that the Unitah Mallet locos are a couple feet longer than the K-36 or K-37 D&RGW locos (not including tenders).

However, in Gauge #1, the Accucraft 1:32 SP cab forward (not including tender) would still be a lot longer than a 1:20.3 Unitah Mallet. The Unitah Mallet would be a lot taller and wider, though.


If any manufacturer made a live steam 1:20.3 Unitah Mallet though, I'll buy one!


Are/were there any narrow/meter gauge Beyer-Garretts that came close to the Mallet's length (although one has to include the "tenders" for that comparison, I think)?


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Jeff, the total length of the Uintah Mallets was 594" which translates to 743mm in 1:20.3 scale. This is almost 10cm longer than the K-36 but i have no precise data on the length of the K-36 engines. Garratts were generally much longer engines, the Kenyan & Ugandan meter gauge monsters had a wheelbase of 1055". That is nearly twice as long... But if you include four or five auxiliary water tanks/tenders, no other engine can beat the Beast;-), Zubi


----------

