Locomotive Wheelbase (TAN)
nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
Sat Jan 14 19:10:18 EST 2006
Thinking about 'late' steam era PRR power will not lead me to reconsider.
The rush to catch up and bring PRR to the front of the class fell short of
success - and at great cost. By type:
S 1 - 6-4-4-6 duplex. Low % of weight on drivers, too long and too
heavy except for portion
of Pitts. to Chicago route. And no attempt to repeat.
S 2 - 6-8-6 direct drive steam turbine. Intended for passenger service;
the stops and starts
were ill suited for a turbine, which is more effective at constant
speed. A better application
would have been through freight service.
T 1 - 4-4-4-4 smaller expression of the duplex concept of the S 1. And
I admit to 'liking'
it for appearance. The 'sharknose' front later was used for BLW's cab
unit diesels. But it
was less capable than conventional modern 4-8-4's; such as N & W's J.
In service, it was
reputed to be rough riding and would slip at speed when the revs got out
of sync.
Q 1 - 4-6-4-4 duplex. Repeated the mistake BLW imposed on the B & O;
divided drive
with rear cylinders under the firebox, driving the rear set 'in
reverse'. Not repeated.
Q 2 - 4-4-6-4 duplex. Finally got the duplex idea to work. Looks like
an articulated; with
cylinders leading each driver set; but with driving axles in a non
articulated frame. Great
HP in a fast freight locomotive. The elongated wheelbase was its
obvious drawback.
IMHO, the PRR had the chance to do better; they did have copies of C & O's
2-10-4; they should have created a Northern; and why not a modern articulated
? Several railroads had copies of UP's 4-6-6-4. I sometimes wonder if PWV's
2-6-6-4. complete with Belpaire firebox, was not intended as a carrot for
PRR.
Jerome Crosson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20060114/87d94354/attachment.html
More information about the NW-Mailing-List
mailing list