Why put a cowcatcher on the back end of a tender?

JonMyrlennBailey

Well-known member
I have seen the drawings of one 1910 2-6-6-2 Baldwin logging Mallet with a cowcatcher on the back of the tender of all places. It looks totally stupid.
My reproduction concept for this particular Baldwin locomotive does away with the cowcatcher on the arse-end as shown. It also calls for a taller-than-original smokestack.
A taller smokestack is the beauty mark of any steam locomotive. Like a Victorian gentleman's top hat, they just look handsomer that way.


 
The most obvious option (if it is a real loco) would be that where it was used there were no facilities to invert them ... or they wanted to save time.
 
Yes, running the loco tender first through country without adequate fencing along the track is one reason why a cow-catcher on the rear of the tender would make perfect sense.

The height of the smoke stack is part of the locos "loading gauge" and dictates, for example, which tunnels it can pass through. If a tall stack passes through a low tunnel or under a low bridge it will quickly get a "haircut" which may cause serious damage. As another example: when locos started to be equipped with GPS receivers, a requirement for some of the more remote locations in Oz, one famous steam loco here, 3801, was unable to have one installed because the only place it could have been fitted was on the cab roof. That would have prevented the loco from being used on some lines because the tunnels and/or over bridges would have removed the device. As a result whenever it travels in those more remote locations it is required to have a GPS equipped pilot loco.

There are usually good reasons why loco designers make the decisions that they do.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top