Noteable Steamers

[Murphy Siding]

Crankpin-yes, that's the word I was looking for. Please explain the pyramid a little more. I picture that the crankpin on wheel #2 would have to connect to the "inner" rod just east of the wheel. The connection to the "outter" rod would be 24" further east. It seems to the crank pin would just that- a pin or peg. And yes, I did go back and read your explanation of the changes from the drawing. Conical wheels?

[Anonymous]

Actually, I drew it looking North, so it's actually on the "west" side of the wheel.[:-,]

Rather than me sending another quick draw, visualize it this way - take the driving wheel, add the 2' extended crankpin, then build a cone around the crankpin. The base of the cone will have a "sliver moon" (that's "sliver", not "silver"!) affect on the wheel when looked at in profile. This should have the effect of spreading the force of the rods around nearly the entire circumference of the wheel.

[Murphy Siding]

Arrrrggggg! My head hurts! I realize you drew it***backward. I just presumed you were left-handed.[;)]. If the crankpin extends EAST from wheel #2, it connects with the outter rod about 24" east of the wheel. If the crankpin is at 12:00 position, and I add a cone of metal for support, that cone would have the same diameter as the wheel-say 5' for example. Unfortunately, the crankpin can only connect to wheel #2 at it's own diameter. Any additional "cone" material would be in the way of the inner rod, that connects wheel#2 to wheel #1.
I have to go throw a kid in the tub.

Later

[Anonymous]

There is no inner rod. The main rod angles from cylinder to wheelset #1at the top of the cone, the next side rod from top of cone #1 to top of cone #2, etc.

However, you could have the frontal rods on the interior of the wheels, which would allow the far outer rods complete conage without interferance.

[Murphy Siding]

You're talking cones now, and I'm thinking Madonna?[:-,]. I can now visualize what you're saying. Only part that still seems not to work would be the main rod angle. I think the rod would have to be in the same plane as the wheel face,or it would bind, I would think. The answe rof course would be to put the main (only) rod on each side out at the far east side of all 3 of the cone/crank pins. And the west side, of course. I think it would still waddle- it would just look like a Madonna wobble![:o)]

[Anonymous]

Well, let's face facts. We're basically talking buggy whips here anyway. (Hmmm, cones and whips, you're right. It is Madonnaistic.)

But for posterity sake, I thing the best solution would be to go cab-forward, firebox up front supported by the lead truck, then the drivers (whatever combination), and thus no need for a trailing truck, so most of your weight is on the drivers, and the drivers can be as tall as desired. In retrospect, I'm kinda suprised some of the other roads with oil burning engines didn't adopt the cab forward principle, especially GN's Portland bound engines via SP&S, since the operating philosophy of GN was to put as much weight on the drivers as possible.

Now, a cab forward Hiawatha Hudson or a cab forward Challenger, that would have been something. But without the trailing truck, what would their designation have been?

[Anonymous]

I suspect clearance issues and axle loading became more of a problem for many modern fast freight and passenger locos or the roads decided horsepower was more important than absolute weight on the drivers. A number of roads experimented with alloy steel boilers to increase strength and reduce weight. NYC Niagra's even had aluminum cabs and running boards. It also became common practice to move the air pumps to the pilot deck or to the front of the smokebox - even GN did this. Some SP locos had their feedwater heater pumps moved under the cab.

The earliest 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 road locos had a gap between the drivers because they have a 3 point suspension for a smoother ride. I've read that those simple GN and UP 2-8-8-0's were really rough on the crew at anything over 25mph.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, let's face facts. We're basically talking buggy whips here anyway. (Hmmm, cones and whips, you're right. It is Madonnaistic.)

But for posterity sake, I thing the best solution would be to go cab-forward, firebox up front supported by the lead truck, then the drivers (whatever combination), and thus no need for a trailing truck, so most of your weight is on the drivers, and the drivers can be as tall as desired. In retrospect, I'm kinda suprised some of the other roads with oil burning engines didn't adopt the cab forward principle, especially GN's Portland bound engines via SP&S, since the operating philosophy of GN was to put as much weight on the drivers as possible.

Now, a cab forward Hiawatha Hudson or a cab forward Challenger, that would have been something. But without the trailing truck, what would their designation have been?

Madonnaistic? You made that one up![:-,]. Now I'm pictureing Madonna w/cones, doing a rope-a-dope on a bicycle built for two. [}:)]