There's no way this ran on the DRG&W.

Rather silly, eh?

For example:

In the 2-10-0 category:
Tractive effort of a 9F: [FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]39,670 lbs.
Tractive effort of a PRR I1sa: 96,000 lbs.

In the 2-8-0 category:
Tractive effort of an 8F: 32,440 lbs.
Tractive effort of a Western Maryland H9: 68,263 lbs.

Etc.

Feel free to challenge me with more examples if this isn't enough.

Why did the WM put as many as 10 of those H9s on one train instead of running 10 trains with a single locomotive each? Running a single 100 car train makes more sense economically than 10 10 car trains. Plus, just imagine the skill it took for 10 crews to communicate without radios.

As far as streamlining, it just makes it harder to access everything.

And freight pays the bills. It's that way it is, it's the way it always has been.
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure we improved the steam locomotive, with simple features. Butterfly firebox doors, and other small peices to produce a better steaming locomotive. Some of our engines are built for speed; I'm not sure as to how fast the N^W 611 Could go if she were let out to run a speed test; i would think she'd hit maybe in the 90s? Yes the british have the fastest steamers, but are soooo tiny, and probaby not alot of tractive effort.

What I don't understand is how ya'll are still using chains, and vacume breaks?

Rock On!
Dusten
 
Wow, this thread quickly became a "let's ridicule each other's country's stuff" discussion... Not very community-spirited, is it? Not to mention off-topic.

It's just a matter of opinion, anyway; some people think American ones are better, some think British ones are better, some German, some Australian, etc etc.

There's no point arguing about it, you'll just come across as arrogant or childish, because you'll never accept or respect the other side's viewpoint.[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica] Then again, if you are too arrogant to respect people's views, why are you on a discussion forum at all?
[Not about anyone in particular, just something to bear in mind so this thread doesn't devolve any further]
[/FONT]
 
I do appologize about the last comment. I was really asking a question, and didn't intend for it to be as rude as it sounds.

Why do ya'll still use chains and vacume breaks?

Rock On!
Dusten
 
Still rather silly of the thread starter there simulator and I must add you too!

He is the one who with a false incredulous and wee arrogance assumed that the train info was a load of baloney and assumed no-one else in the world would do this?! He was proved wrong. And again as Blackwatch pointed out big is not necessary the attribute to die for. That is the point I was making and still do and thought that was obvious? In being carried away with the big concept that is traditional in your country you too assume that other countries would not be able to handle the hauling. Dear, oh dear there is a bigger world outside the USA! I fully and fairly agree that in the America it is the goods side that brings in the money but America isn't the world and in many other places such as here it is passenger that rules.

As for appearance the bottom line I do in all fairness accept would be as long as the loco does the job but I still think they look ugly compared to much elsewhere. Just a passing small point not some guard the flag issue!
 
simulatortrain said:
Rather silly, eh?

For example:

In the 2-10-0 category:
Tractive effort of a 9F: [FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]39,670 lbs.
Tractive effort of a PRR I1sa: 96,000 lbs.

Feel free to challenge me with more examples if this isn't enough.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Like a government you use ONLY the figures that suit you to 'spin' your arguement, but you miss out the figures that really matter.

Tractive effort is not just down to wheel arrangement, the weight of the locomotive has a lot to do with it as well.
The I1s design was huge, taking advantage of the PRR's heavy trackage and high allowed axle loadings, these weights & loadings are higher than allowed on British railways, so you are not comparing locomotives on a 'like for like' basis. :)

For the nation that designed some really beautiful automobiles, I really do think that they could have made better looking loco's.
 
Last edited:
What a futile and pointless exercise in "mine is bigger than yours".

I enjoy steam and diesel from both countries.

Anyone with half a brain can understand that each country has developed it's locomotives to operate in two vastly different railway\railroad environments.
 
Yeah our locomotives suited our needs, we got what we needed without overkill which would have I guess been much more expensive to make and maintain :cool:
 
BLACKWATCH said:
The I1s design was huge, taking advantage of the PRR's heavy trackage and high allowed axle loadings, these weights & loadings are higher than allowed on British railways, so you are not comparing locomotives on a 'like for like' basis. :)
Click to expand...

Fine, how about this: The Western Maryland, who did not use 150 lb/yd rail, ran 2-10-0s with tractive effort of 96,300 lbs.

My point just is, whether it's unfair to compare them or not, we ran higher tractive effort than over there. I understand there are reasons we could and did, and limits to your locomotive sizes, and that's not my argument.

Also on the passenger issue, I wasn't saying that freight makes the money worldwide. I was only talking here, giving you the reason we run most freight. Just for the record, most countries' passenger rail is subsidized.
 
rjhowie2 said:
Still rather silly of the thread starter there simulator and I must add you too!

He is the one who with a false incredulous and wee arrogance assumed that the train info was a load of baloney and assumed no-one else in the world would do this?! He was proved wrong. And again as Blackwatch pointed out big is not necessary the attribute to die for. That is the point I was making and still do and thought that was obvious? In being carried away with the big concept that is traditional in your country you too assume that other countries would not be able to handle the hauling. Dear, oh dear there is a bigger world outside the USA! I fully and fairly agree that in the America it is the goods side that brings in the money but America isn't the world and in many other places such as here it is passenger that rules.

As for appearance the bottom line I do in all fairness accept would be as long as the loco does the job but I still think they look ugly compared to much elsewhere. Just a passing small point not some guard the flag issue!
Click to expand...

Just for the record, I wasn't the one that took the thread off topic. That title belongs to your bud Blackwatch.
 
BLACKWATCH said:
Using how many loco's ? ;)

I often watch the freight movements through Roanoke, so have seen a few long trains pulling through there at a crawl.
But I'd like to see an American engine pull 5 miles of freight up to Shap summit. :D
Click to expand...


It is called yard limits. Back in the day, you would have one A on the head end(2-6-6-2) and one Y6b (2-8-8-2) on the rear shoving a huge train out of Roanoke up the Blue Ridge grade. Through Roanoke, sure, they went kinda slow, but that was because of speed limits. On the hill, they slugged it out, but could get to about 30-40 mph at some spots. But again, this is a mile long train, on a several mile long grade.

Now, passenger wise, you would have the infamous J, which would actually be accelerating up the grade.

Don't bring Roanoke into this. Statistically speaking, they were the best built steam locomotives in the world. The N&W's Roanoke shops knew what they were building.


As for British engines, they are NG stock, on SG rails. Give me NZR stuff anyday. It is the same size, just a more fitting gauge. And it can pull better too, as they were built for mountains, unlike British stuff.


Oh, and what is this crap about US locos only doing 20mph? That's yard limits dude. It is hard to keep an engine going that slow at times. Most speed limits are between 40mph and 60mph. And this is freight. And not the pansy 20 car freights that Britain runs. This is, most of the time, over 100 cars.


















NOW BACK ON TOPIC.

Yeah, Fairlie's are pretty cool. I know that the LVRR had a few of them back in the day. Really though, they weren't that good due to one small flaw. They didn't have much capacity for coal or water.
 
Last edited:
Please close this thread down. I do appologize for starting an argument, and other non sense, as I was just trying to state an opinon at fisrt.

This is going to turn into a fight before long.

~Dusten
 
The Prr K4 Pacific class for example had recorded over 1.5 million miles each per locomotive, just saying, thanks for making my day a little better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top