C&S 2-10-2 913, Fort Collins, CO, June 22, 1956 (Al Chione duplicate) CB&Q 4-6-0 919, Willard, CO, August 2, 1956 (Al Chione duplicate)
And street running! Must be impressive to see that huge beast chugging down the middle of the street. There is no doubt whatsoever who has the right of way here.
C&S 2-10-2 903, Cheyenne, WY, November 3, 1956 (Al Chione duplicate) Colorado & Southern 2-10-2 914, Fort Collins, CO, May 1, 1957 (Al Chione duplicate)
It's interesting. They weren't that heavy. Both your Milwaukee and my Santa Fe had Hudson types that were markedly heavier. But there definitely is something about those particular Santa Fe types which does give that impression. Is it that small smokebox door that makes the boiler look so big?
Photo angle? What appear to be smaller drivers than the MILW and Santa Fe you mentioned? It just gives that impression....
I think you put your finger on a big part of it. The Santa Fe's 3800s rode on drivers three inches bigger.
C&S 2-8-0 634, Denver, CO, June 6, 1957 (Al Chione duplicate) C&S 2-8-0 605, Denver, CO, September 26, 1957 (Al Chione duplicate)
The angle of 634 as captured has me thinking of similar lines for some of the 2-8-0's which went to Europe during WWII. But once again, 605 has that same big barrel boiler appearance. I am wondering if that was due to the type of coal they were using...?
Well, not really, the boiler was in an awkward position due to the very small UK loading gauge (the smallest in Europe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USATC_S160_Class#/media/File:USATC-5740_locomotive.jpg here the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USATC_S160_Class
Well, not quite. The boiler was set high not because it meant less weight per axle, but because that allowed for a wide firebox without a trailing truck. So, more of its light weight went to traction.
I believe the term "loading gauge" does not have anything to do with weight. It is more about the maximum height and width dimensions of the locomotives and the rolling stock as well as their loads. This to ensure that the train can fit going through tunnels and under bridges, and keep clear of platforms, trackside buildings and structures.
Right you are. This certainly isn't why the boiler and firebox are raised, of course. That's to allow a wide firebox without a trailing truck. But it does explain the long, low sandbox and the stack mostly being inside the smokebox. Which, in turn, makes the engine look bigger than it is.
look bigger .... and weirder ...... Thank you for the firebox story, did not know that issue, but it makes sense. IN any case I was not referring to the weight issue, but to the dimensions of the locomotive. British trains look weirder because of the different poportions of their very narrow and low gauge limit.
Yes, there used to be a noticeable difference between trains in the northeastern states and the rest of the U.S, even though they're all interconnected in our case. There's much less of that now, over fifty years later, as modifications continued. When you started five years or more before the rest of the world got in on the act, you get trapped into a somewhat antiquated system. Essentially you're a victim of your own success, because you helped things grow up around you.
