AltonFan wrote:QUOTE: Originally posted by dingoix 4-6-4 hudsons weren't the greatest. They had too much of their weight on non-driving wheels. They were ok for passenger service but even then they may need a booster engine. I've never heard of one used for freight although it would be cool. The IC tried to develop a 4-6-4 for merchandise service (less-than-carload freight). The experiment proved a failure, and the engine was rebuilt for passenger service. I believe there is a formula involving tractive effort and weight on drivers. I believe the ratio can predict if an engine will tend to be slippery. However, a number of Hudsons ended their days pulling freight trains. There is a photo of a NKP 4-6-4 in America's Colorful Railroads doing just this.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dingoix 4-6-4 hudsons weren't the greatest. They had too much of their weight on non-driving wheels. They were ok for passenger service but even then they may need a booster engine. I've never heard of one used for freight although it would be cool.
Well, NKP did run fast freight
Seems to me a 4-6-4 is overpowered for freight service (altho, as you said, it happend on occasion) because most didn't have much more tractive effort than a Pacific, but they had more power (most of them). A lot of that extra power is doing no good, as you can't get all of it to the rail. But for high speed passenger service on realativly flat grades, a Hudson was a good engine.
Dan
--David
QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 I Regarding the Triplex, was there some type of mechanism to compensate for the decreasing weight on the 3rd set of drivers as water and fuel was used up?
Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern
QUOTE: Originally posted by joseph2 I also read the Erie triplexes had too large of cylinders and not enough steam .
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter