Locomotive Wheelbase (TAN)

[nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org]

IIRC, the Frisco Russian Decapod @ the St Louis Trans. Museum had  
blind drivers on the #1 and #4(?) driving axles.

The only train wreck that I've been in occurred when the Sierra RR   
2-8-0 pulling our train tender-first derailed and almost rolled over  
down an embankment when the rear drivers picked a point on a curved  
switch and the blind #3 and #2 drivers followed off the track.  The  
engine jack-knifed into the tender which prevented it from going  
over.  I was standing in the vestibule of the first car!

While discussing steam loco wheelbases:

How did the railroads that ran articulateds deal with track level (or  
surface?) issues?

1.  Were some tracks or routes off limits to some engines because  
they had excessive vertical curves?

2.  Were articulateds usually built with more vertical journal box  
travel than engines with shorter wheelbases to accommodate vertical  
curves?

Pete Groom

On Jan 8, 2006, at 8:27 PM, nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org wrote:

. . .
On some class I1 2-10-0s that PRR owned (some built by Baldwin, the  
rest by Altoona), which were probably twice as large as the  
Gainesville Midland engines you're thinking about, only the #1 and #5  
drivers had flanges.  The #2, #3 and #4 were all blind.  And the PRR  
engines weren't really expected to negotiate tight curvature.  Why  
did they do it that way?  I have no idea, but they did.

EdKing
. . .