This leads me to wonder... was there ever a 2-6-4 type, and if so what was it called ?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Yes - in the Whyte classification system it was called the Adriatic. In the U.S. all of them were the 2-6-4T style.
Such locomotives were designed to run in either direction in commuter service. Their frames were extended for a compact vertical tank for fuel and water behind the cab. They had "cowcatchers" under their rear couplers.
Similar locomotives were built with longer frames for bigger tanks. "Bogies" built by William Mason in Taunton, MA (who also built beautiful 4-4-0 No. 25 in the B&O Museum in Baltimore) and Maine 2-foot-gauge locomotives are examples.
This brings up an interesting issue from my childhood. My first lionel engine was a 2-6-4 and I was really happy with it. This was an extremly common and popular engine in the post war era, several of my friends also had them. Then I got a book on trains that explained the Wyeth classification system. Despite having four major railroads in town nobody ever saw an Adriadic. We saw 2-8-0s,2-8-2s,4-6-2s 4-8-2s but no 2-6-4s. To this day,sixty years later I have never seen one.
My friends and I even attempted to convert the 2-6-4 to a 4-6-2 using parts from an erector set. It would run only on straight track,couldn't take 0-27 curves. When it hit the curve it would throw off a beautiful shower of sparks. I still have the locomotive and it's tender with the whistle that is a story unto itself.
I have heard Adriatics did exist and were used for fast freight, I don't know where.
It is sort if a bucket list thing with me to see one. Does anybody know where a real 2-6-4 can be seen on a tourist road or a museum? I would prefer it not be a 2-6-4t.
The classification name was due to the fact that Austria-Hungary was supposed to have been the country that made this wheel arrangement “popular” and it is named for the Adriatic Sea.
Based on a quick Google search it looks like there’s one preserved in Austria.
Ok, here's a thought on why no "Adriatic" was ever built in this country. By the time that the 4 wheel trailing truck had evolved, about 1925, freight steam locomotives were being built only with 8 or more drivers. An "Adriatic" would have been a freight locomotive with it's 2 wheel pilot truck, as passenger locomotives were built with 4 wheel engine trucks. It would have been too small to be productive.
Here is a Reading 2-6-4T.
Stuart
As soon as one says something never existed, a guy will show up the next day with a picture that refutes one's claim!
The pictures that have been posted are both 2-6-4t which means the tank and fuel were on the trailing truck.
Lionel's popular 6-8-6 was based on a prototype that actually ran on an American road.
To restate my question of sixty years, Did any American roads use a 2-6-4 (not a 2-6-4t) and did any survive? The Lionel 2-6-4 was one of the more popular engines on 3 rails in the 1950s but I have never been able to find out if a prototype existed. It would probably have been used for fast freight.
Douglas
Originally Posted by TP Fan:
The pictures that have been posted are both 2-6-4t which means the tank and fuel were on the trailing truck.
Lionel's popular 6-8-6 was based on a prototype that actually ran on an American road.
To restate my question of sixty years, Did any American roads use a 2-6-4 (not a 2-6-4t) and did any survive?
No, as there were NOT any prototypes.
The Lionel 2-6-4 was one of the more popular engines on 3 rails in the 1950s but I have never been able to find out if a prototype existed.
That's because there were none.
It would probably have been used for fast freight.
Nope, they didn't exist, except as "tank" locomotives for commute service.
Douglas
This is why, as a kid, and a Marx owner, some of us looked down our noses at
Lionel, since they had "fake" engines. Marx had Columbias (although prototypes of
those are hard to find, too), Pacifics, and Hudsons. There have been some other "toy" steamers with rare wheel arrangement offered, such as 4-4-4's, but those did exist.
I have always considered it a configuration that didn't fit the need in most RRs here in the states, or many RRs in Europe for that matter.
As I see it, a two-wheel front truck meant stability at moderate speed but a four-axle rear pilot normally meant you were supporting a large firebox: and generally that meant a fast loco which did better with a four-wheel front truck. And if the loco in question was not meant for high speeds then the large firebox meant it was a powerful but slow helper or switcher type which needed no front pilot at all. Note the Reading loco Stuart posted a photo of needed the two-wheel pilot because it was basically like a tank engine type that carried its own fuel.
