Locomotive Wheelbase

[nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org]

Bill - I didn't say that rigid wheelbase is not a factor in the ability of a 
steam locomotive to negotiate track curvature.  You are misinterpreting my 
remarks regarding the ability of the ACL R1 4-8-4; I also never said that 
the R1 could not negotiate N&W's curvature.  What I DID say was that the R1 
did not have the power to adequately handle N&W's passenger consists 
systemwide.

Go back and read my post again.

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
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
To: <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:07 PM
Subject: Locomotive Wheelbase



>A query for Ed King :  If, as Ed says,  rigid wheelbase is not a factor in

> the

> ability of a steam locomotive to negotiate track curvature, then why is it

> that

> when  Baldwin  Locomotive Works produced Decapod  2-10-0    class

> locomotives, they left the third, or middle drive wheel flat all the way

> across

> without a flange?     Bill Sellers

>

> ________________________________________

> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org

> To change your subscription go to

> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list

>