An American example is the tight clearances in the lines out of New York City. Or that Alco had to deliver the VGN 2-10-10-2's minus cabs and low pressure cylinders to fit the NYC clearance.
Comparing the NYC Niagaras with the Rock Island 4-8-4s shows the dramatically lower boiler mountings required by the older Eastern lines on basically similar locomotives.
But the same problem occurred in Europe in 1937 when the Russians sent two of their latest locomotives to Paris for an exhibition. These were a "Felix Dzerzhinsky" 2-10-2 and a "Joseph Stalin" 2-8-4, which were both based on a Baldwin 2-10-2 supplied in 1931, but significantly lighter.
The locomotives were easily converted to standard gauge, but the cabs, stacks and possibly the dome covers if not the domes were removed. However the tenders didn't fit. The upper corners of the coal space exceeded the clearances in Europe. So two special tenders were built, angled in at the loading gauge in order to get to Paris. The author John Westwood photographed an FD 2-10-2 with one of these special tenders during the 1950s. Clearly nothing was wasted, even special vehicles for exhibitions...
Peter
When Krauss-Maffei built the first locomotives for SP and DRGW the contour of thr turret/cab followed the German and Austrian loading gauge. For test in Austria and Germany the air horn needed lowering and grabirons weren't mounted yet.
The Bombardier ALP-46 and ALP-45DP wee built in Kassel, Germany, and trucked to the Port of Hamburg and transported to the USA on ships: http://www.andreas-fotogalerie.de/Hansebube/0635-0026k.jpgRegards, Volker
Don't forget the difference in the strength of the track and bridges. In Europe, 25 tons per axle was / is considered heavy. In the US, 35.8 tons (71500 pounds) is the modern standard for load per axle.
Even if there was enough room for them to fit, Europeans would not even want to think about the distruction to rails and bridges a C&O H-8 Allegeny 2-6-6-6 (over 40 ton axle load, and roughly 350 ton engine weight) would have left in their wake.
Piper106aEven if there was enough room for them to fit, Europeans would not even want to think about the distruction to rails and bridges a C&O H-8 Allegeny 2-6-6-6 (over 40 ton axle load, and roughly 350 ton engine weight) would have left in their wake.
There never was a requirement for those giant locomotives.
Europe and USA have different railroading philosophies. In most European countries passenger trains have absolute priority. To avoid too much interference/delays the speed gap between passenger and freight needs to be small. Freight trains are mostly run near the average speed of the passenger trains (including station stops).
Freight train length (limited by historically short yards and sidings), axle loads and thus weight seem to be a good compromise to run passenger and freight together.
Currently work is underway to allow train length of 840 m(2755 ft) on selected routes.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR There never was a requirement for those giant locomotives. (Re: C&O H-8)
There never was a requirement for those giant locomotives. (Re: C&O H-8)
At least for European railroads.
With a few exceptions, the North American rail system derived most of its revenues from freight from the very beginning. Since most of the North American rail system composed of single track main lines, there was an incentive to reduce the number of meets which translates into longer trains and thus larger locomotives.
- Erik
P.S. Vance's book, The North American Railroad, goes into detail about the divergence between American and European practice.
Prior to the adoption of air brakes and automatic couplers in 1900 as mandated by the safety Appliance Act of 1893, freight trains were usually around 20-25 cars maximum (only 34-36' typically). Lengths increased quickly after that to 50 or more cars.
That and the rapid adoption of steel for freight car construction that could hold up to over 100,000 lb of tractive effort.
VOLKER LANDWEHRCurrently work is underway to allow train length of 840 m(2755 ft) on selected routes.
Just to put it in perspective, on many US railroads, a cut 2800 ft long would not be large enough to warrant running as a through freight. The railroad would hold for more tonnage or combine it with another train.
As a comparison, when my son worked at Ogden, UT, they would kick out a 12,000-14,000 ft train several times a month.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman VOLKER LANDWEHR Currently work is underway to allow train length of 840 m(2755 ft) on selected routes. Just to put it in perspective, on many US railroads, a cut 2800 ft long would not be large enough to warrant running as a through freight. The railroad would hold for more tonnage or combine it with another train. As a comparison, when my son worked at Ogden, UT, they would kick out a 12,000-14,000 ft train several times a month.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Currently work is underway to allow train length of 840 m(2755 ft) on selected routes.
European railroads have different operational requirements.
Try to run the American 12,000 tons train at 80 mph. That is primary needed in Europe to reduce interference with passenger traffic and keep pace with it running at its average speed including station stops.
That are two completely different worlds, passenger oriented (Europe) and freight oriented (USA).Regards, Volker
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.