Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Railway Man"][quote user="Lars Loco"]Right on Paul, but please consider, as you mentioned it, a steam-turbine-electric was never successful (water and electricity packed close together on a locomotive frame... ouch!). In addition, UPRR did some serious own research about designing good draft systems. In case of BB, the second run to Green River was easier and may have shown better boiler-performance. Instead of putting "fancy" gadgets on steamlocomotives, running lighter trains with them could habe been a better alternative. Cheers lars[/quote] A  better alternative to what?  Are you saying the railway would have made more money if it ran its trains faster? RWM [/quote]  Hello Rail-Way Man,yes, certainly, not on all conditions but generally yes. It could make better sence, to operate a couple of trains more per day and keep the mainline busy and fluid. This is, from what I understand, are showing the results of BB test runs. Let's have a look, the lightest train with engine 4004 and 3539tons took Wasatch with a good clip of 21,2 mph, and needed 20min less than the other two runs (approx 4hours for 75miles). And as written, this time "the 4004 really rolled them that evening, because the high iron was loaded with many trains..."In all cases, the minimum continuous speed was 13-14mph from milepost 942 eastward to 928 at a continuous grade of 1,14%, keeping the train one hour working there.That performance is OK in my eyes, Otherwise, just put some more hundred tons on the train, it than maybe working two hours on the grade with 7-8mph and wasting fuel and low economical performance. Cheerslars
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