Forums

[Anonymous]

can anyone describe or display a photo of cab forward loco layout ?

Thank you.

[KCSfan]

can anyone describe or display a photo of cab forward loco layout ?

Thank you.

The Southern Pacific was the big user of cab forwards in the US. Check the following for a photo of one.

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/sp/sp-s4120o.jpg

This is but one of hundreds of photos that can be viewed on George Elwood's Fallen Flag site. Included are diesel and steam locomotives and rolling stock. In case you are not familiar with it the address is:

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/

It is definitely worth a visit.

Mark

[canazar]

Here is a couple of mine on my layout.   It is a Broadway Limited AC-4. 

[jimrice4449]

When the Southern Pacific bought it's first 2-8-8-2 articulateds (2 oil burners classed AC-1, for Articulated Consolidation) they immediatly discovered they had a problem w/ exhaust nearly suffocating engine crews in the many tunnels and snowsheds on the line.  Some genius hit upon the idea of turning the engines around and pumping the oil from the tender the length of the engine to the relocated firebox.  Worked like a champ and the modified engines were reclassified AC-2.   Then they ordered duplicates built  w/ the cabs in front classified AC-3.   With the AC-4s and up to AC-12s the 2 wheel leading truck was replaced w/ a 4 wheel, making them 4-8-8-2s.   When it came time to get some articulateds for the New Mexico Division, which was coal burning territory, the turned the cab forwards around to  which made the AC-9s cab backward.   As dieselization progressed the AC-9s were tranferred to the Modoc Line from Klamath Falls Oregon to Fernly Nevada, a district having neither tunnels nor snow sheds.

[Texas Chief]

John, how well does that engine pull? I've been thinking of replacing my Rivarossi cab forward with one but after I found out that they don't have traction wheels, I'm having second thoughts. Thanks

Dick

Texas Chief

[Railfan1]

Nice pics John.

[canazar]

John, how well does that engine pull? I've been thinking of replacing my Rivarossi cab forward with one but after I found out that they don't have traction wheels, I'm having second thoughts. Thanks

Dick

Texas Chief

 

It pulls very well.   My layout isnt too big, a 15x 19.  It has a 90 double main line so a 30 car train is about my limit.   It has no problems.   I also have a grade that is around 2.2 percent with a 34 inch curve  (the picture if it in the sunlight is the train coming to the top of the grade) and it will pull it up that with out an issue.   At one of my clubs events, I was on a the layout doubleheading with another Cab Forward a 50 car reefer train.  But then the other Cab Forward had to be pulled  (DCC issue) and I brought the rest of the train home into the yard.  Mind you, when we set the layout up with the modules, we were close to 260 feet long main line and I went around 2 and half times.  No problems I could tell.  ... and yes, it was impressive!

  And the sound is great too.

 

Glad you liked the pics!  The Cab forward is my favorite steam type engine.   This paticular model, is the pride of my collection.

[Anonymous]

Well, for one thing, the Southern Pacificsure seemed to like them, especially on the Sierra Route.

[tatans]

I can't believe all steam locomotives weren't cab-forwards, it certainly makes sense to me, I was lucky enough to have a neighbour who was a hogger and listened to many stories of life as an engineer, he said all his life he breathed coal smoke and cinders and spent half the time picking cinders from his eyes, plus the heat on the prairies behind a great big fat firebox, he said it was like a sauna, and strangely in the winter they froze their feet and faces when it was 45 below, the one reason he DID like 40 feet of boiler in front of him was when he crashed into grain trucks stalled on the tracks, he also remebered not to look out the window when he hit the truck when all the grain flew back and hit him in the face, he looked like he had the measles, he also said he saw photos of cab forwards but regretted never seeing one in person. I'm rambling.

[Don Gibson]

It helps to be an Espee fan. They were primaily used for mountainous terrain: Sierras , Cascades, and Tehachepis - both freight & passenger

A 4-8-8-2 (or any large engine) needs large curves to look and operate like a realistic train.  24"R doesn't do it.

A cab forward on 22" radius is like carrying a surfboard on a unicycle. Try 30" - 46"r.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

With the sole exception of a small locomotive on the North Pacific Coast RR around 1900, SP was the only operator of cab-forwards in the United States.  According to Dan Ranger's article in TRAINS in the late 1960's, WP also considered cab-forwards but engine crews voted down the idea, in part because of rock slides in Feather River Canyon.

All of the cab-forwards were oil-burners, no other fuel was possible.

[tomikawaTT]

I can't believe all steam locomotives weren't cab-forwards, it certainly makes sense to me, I was lucky enough to have a neighbour who was a hogger and listened to many stories of life as an engineer, he said all his life he breathed coal smoke and cinders and spent half the time picking cinders from his eyes, plus the heat on the prairies behind a great big fat firebox, he said it was like a sauna, and strangely in the winter they froze their feet and faces when it was 45 below, the one reason he DID like 40 feet of boiler in front of him was when he crashed into grain trucks stalled on the tracks, he also remebered not to look out the window when he hit the truck when all the grain flew back and hit him in the face, he looked like he had the measles, he also said he saw photos of cab forwards but regretted never seeing one in person. I'm rambling.

Simple mechanics makes it impractical to build an SP-style cab forward coal burner.  Oil fuel moves through pipes and hoses, and only needs one pump.  Coal moves from bunker to firebox with the aid of a screw conveyor - and I, for one, would hate the job of designing one to run the full length of a 16-drivered articulated.  Maintaining it would be a bear, and reliability would DEFINITEY be an issue!

OTOH, if the Beyer-Garratt had ever caught on in the US it would have been no big thing to run one bunker-end forward.  Of course, the engine crew would still have been working "up close and personal" with the firebox...

Chuck