UP Challenger

Greg Procter wrote:
> The normal (European) use of the "+" is for locos where individual > loco units are perminantly coupled together, such as the Swiss Ae
> 8/14 - two complete locos but some (control) equipment is not > duplicated. A US example might be the earliest F units as originally > delivered ie Bo'Bo'+Bo'Bo'. for an A+B "unit". The apostrophes show a > separate flexible frame, so the SP AC becomes a 4'8'-8 2'. (the > second set of drivers has no apostrophy because they are mounted on > the rigid main frame)
In that case the notation would be 4'8-8'2'. The second set of drivers are articulated, not the first.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mark_newton wrote:

Good point! :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/21/05 12:30 AM, in article snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz, "Greg Procter"

Wrong! The convention is to count from the "front" of the loco to the "back".
--
Brian Ehni



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:
> The convention with steam locos is to count from the chimney end to > the firebox end. (with some obvious exceptions)
And what would they be? Steam locos with Franco-Crosti boilers, where the chimney/stack/funnel is halfway down the side of the boiler? Double Fairlies or Pechot-Bourdons, with two boilers either side of a common firebox? Kitson-Meyers with one boiler, but two chimneys, one at each end? Your "convention" doesn't work with any of these.
The Italians described their Gr670 class engines as 4-6-0s, not 0-6-4s, the SP described their engines as 4-6-6-2s and 4-8-8-2s, so where is the evidence that the convention is to count wheels fom the chimney end?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mark_newton wrote:

That would definitely be an exception!

You should get the same result counting from either end!
Nor does yours!

That's the one - they counted from the chimney end.

The Italian loco you mentioned above.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/21/05 10:14 PM, in article snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz, "Greg Procter"

How about this: why can't we accept the "convention" of the country in question? Here in the US, that means count from the designed "front" of the locomotive, while elsewhere, it means the stack end.
Since the SP NEVER referred to the AC-12 (for example) as a 2-8-8-4, and ALWAYS as a 4-8-8-2 (in the original Whyte scheme), that's good enough for me.
If the same loco were running down under, I'd be fine with you calling it whatever you wanted.
--
Brian Ehni



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
with steam locos is to count from the chimney end to

the
Agree. Note that the US "bible", the Locomotive Cyclopedia, states that the Whyte classification starts at the "pilot or head end of the engine". It also makes sense to base the system on the usual front of the locomotive rather than the smokestack as lead and trail trucks are functionally different, and it can be useful to know which truck is performing which function. Lead trucks almost always have lever or roller arrangements which increase the load on the leading axle(s) as the truck moves off-center as part of the design to help guide the locomotive into a curve. Trailing trucks most often use rockers or rollers which keep the load on the rear axles constant as the truck moves off center. I don't have detailed drawings of the trucks under the cabs of the Espee cad-forwards, but from their external appearance, they are more like the outside bearing lead trucks on some 4-8-4's than they are like a typical Commonwealth firebox-supporting trailing truck. Geezer
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Paul Ehni wrote:

I'm fine with that - without having made my first comment I would never have realized that the US/SP convention was different.

I think we're going to have some problems adapting it to 3'6" gauge and our smaller tunnels! :-)
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Snipped!

You could always put a TBM in front of it.... The first time thru is a little slow and rough, but after that's over you shouldn't have any clearance problems. :)
--
+GF+

"I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/22/05 3:18 PM, in article snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz, "Greg Procter"

But imagine the photo opportunities!
I'd love to see the sole remaining SP cab forward in steam again; won't ever happen, though: the Republic of California has her stuffed and mounted in Sacramento, where you can't even get decent photos.
--
Brian Ehni



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Paul Ehni wrote:

That's a shame! Are any of the US Mallets running these days? A 600mm gauge Decauville 0-4-4-0t just wouldn't give the same effect!
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:
> Are any of the US Mallets running these days?
The last time I was in that part of NZ, there was an Alco 2-4-4-2 running at Glenbrook. Is it still operable?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mark_newton wrote:

Yes, that one still runs every weekend. I was thinking of Big Boys, Challengers etc etc (anything from the Rivarossi catalogue :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/22/05 9:04 PM, in article snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz, "Greg Procter"

Not Mallets in the truest sense, as they are not compound; UP 3985 is still running (a 4-6-6-4), and the N&W 1218 (2-6-6-4) MAY be operational, but is not currently running.
--
Brian Ehni



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Paul Ehni wrote:

Considering the tiny proportion of the total of Mallet type articulation locos to compound articulateds, the convention is that ALL the Mallet type articulateds are known as Mallets.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:

IIRC, you'll find the the majority of 'Mallets' (by sheer numbers) were compound (at least at some time in their history). Only the later of their kind, mostly those built in the 30's and 40's were simple. A few of the older compounds, those that lasted long enough, were also converted to simple locos during rebuildings. And a few STAYED compound, or were even BUILT compound, in later years (notably the N&W "Y" class).
Dan Mitchell ==========Dan Mitchell ===========
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:
> Considering the tiny proportion of the total of Mallet type > articulation locos to compound articulateds, the convention is that > ALL the Mallet type articulateds are known as Mallets.
The convention in the US is to decribe these locos as "simple articulateds", to differentiate them from Mallet compounds.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:
>>> The convention with steam locos is to count from the chimney end >>> to the firebox end. (with some obvious exceptions) >> >> And what would they be? Steam locos with Franco-Crosti boilers, >> where the chimney/stack/funnel is halfway down the side of the >> boiler? > > That would definitely be an exception!
And yet the Italians counted wheels from the front of these locos, just like every other railway.
>> Double Fairlies or Pechot-Bourdons, with two boilers either side of >> a common firebox? > > You should get the same result counting from either end!
Yes, you should. I mention them as examples of engines where the front of the loco is not readily defined by the location of the chimney/stack/funnel. :-)
>> Kitson-Meyers with one boiler, but two chimneys, one at each end? >> Your "convention" doesn't work with any of these.
> Nor does yours!
Yes, it does. My convention, and the one apparently used by almost everyone else on the planet, is to count from the *front* of the loco.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dennis Mayer wrote:

Perhaps so intended, but ...
I've seen lots of photos of the 4-8+8-2 "AC" types in passenger service. This was especially tue of the heavy troop trains around the time of WW-II.
Dan Mitchell ===========
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not true, the AC-4 thru AC-12's were used in passenger service as the need would arise for plenty of TE on a passenger train. I have a pic of an AC-11 as I recall on the Overland. It was taken most likely in the Korean conflict as there are Troop sleepers in the consist and the lower part of the cab is painted Silver. I believe in the early 50's and late 40's AC's handled the "Owl" over the Tehach. mtns on a fairly regular basis. Yes the early 4-6-6-2 were for passenger service, but the SP did whatever it wanted with it's power.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.