Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Duplex Steam Locomotive / Steam discussion

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
It's been documented over the years that any locomotive intended to reduce the number of crews necessary to move a given amount of business encountered resistance from the crews. One of the most notable of these was the NP 2-8-8-4 which was intended to replace doubleheaded Mikados, and was perfectly capable of doing so. This is amply documented in Lorenz and Frey's NORTHERN PACIFIC - SUPERSTEAM ERA. It was also documented in the story of the engines in TRAINS, a few years back. But the crews resisted the big engines; the FRA inspectors were on the property constantly at the behest of the BofLE and BofLF&E, taking exception to everything they could think of. Steam leaks, particularly in winters in the Dakotas, were a big target of the inspectors. The same had occurred in the 1910s on the Norfolk and Western, where crews were being replaced one for two when the 2-6-6-2s came to replace doubleheaded 4-8-0s. I'm certain that the T1 encountered the same resistance; I have the PRR society's Keystone magazines with the remembrance of the T1, and it seems to bear this out. Several years back, Vernon L. Smith was a neighbor of mine; he's the guy who wrote ONE MANS LOCOMOTIVES; he and I met for coffee on many occasions, and it was a great education just talking with him. Smith had worked for Franklin Railway Supply (the poppet valve people) and had spent quite a bit of time with the T1s. He made the point, and it's a good one, that the T1 came and went during its service life and took what it had coming, right in stride. But as with anything else, competent engine handling made all the difference. Old Timer
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag