Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

CN and CP steam

1267 views
4 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: CA
  • 245 posts
CN and CP steam
Posted by bruce22 on Wednesday, April 2, 2014 2:01 PM

Did either of these roads have articulated's ?  If not, can you tell me the reason ?  

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: 4610 Metre's North of the Fortyninth on the left coast of Canada
  • 9,352 posts
Posted by BATMAN on Wednesday, April 2, 2014 7:12 PM

Brent

"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: CA
  • 245 posts
Posted by bruce22 on Wednesday, April 2, 2014 9:07 PM
Brent, thanks very much for this site. Can you or anyone else tell me why , if articulateds provided no advantage why they were so prevalent on U.S. roads ? A lot of the terrain covered in both countries is quite similar.
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Southwest US
  • 12,914 posts
Posted by tomikawaTT on Thursday, April 3, 2014 6:30 AM

Articulateds (or, more specifically, Mallet-style semiarticulateds) do provide advantages over any rigid frame loco with the same number and size of drivers.  Note that the largest practical rigid-frame loco was a 4-12-2, and that it required lateral-motion devices on several axles to allow it to round the curves where it was used.  (The Russian 4-14-4 was a one-off disaster.)  The equivalent articulated, a 2-6-6-2, was considered small.  Most US-operated articulateds were x-8-8-x types, equivalent to having two eight-coupled locos under the control of a single crew.

Articulateds, especially Mallet-compounds, also have disadvantages - complexity, low drivers (low speed and hard on the track) sometimes too much locomotive for the assigned train (N&W Y6 pulling fewer cars than it had drivers...)  Early articulateds were not universally successful, to the extent that ATSF soured on the type, rebuilt all it had to conventional locomotives and only used ex-N&W Y3s during WWII because they couldn't get anything else out of the WPB.  And, just as soon as wartime traffic slacked off, they dumped the Y3s on the Virginian.

Canada being a country of long distances, the CN and CP management may have decided that early Mallets were just too slow.  Then the later, faster simple articulateds developed south of the 49th parallel simply didn't interest them.  We would like to think that all management decisions are rational, made after considering all the evidence.  That isn't always the case.

Japan was similar.  Early in the history of the Imperial Government Railway they had a few Mallets (Kraus-Maffei 0-4-4-0 and Alco 2-4-4-2.)  Both were lightweights, with less tractive effort than 2-8-0 types already in service.  All later imports, and all 'built in Japan' steamers, were rigid frame, mostly x-8-x.  Only a handful of ten-coupled steamers were ever built for the IGR and later JNR.

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with articulateds that never ran there)

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:07 PM

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!