Date
1 - 4 of 4
USRA 2-8-2s
|
Stefan <stefan@...>
As far as i understand it, the WP class MK60 #306-310 were the USRA engines
bought from the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern(#802-806) in 1920. These should be similar to the Athearn 2-8-2s (r perhaps the Rivs--see below) and may be a good model with some modifications. These were oil burners. However, at 320000lbs total engine wt. are these Heavy Mikes? What is the division of heavy vs. light for theseUSRA types? Best regards Stefan Lerche' Duncan, B.C. Canada
|
|
|
|
Thomas Beutel <Thomas.Beutel@...>
Hi Stefan,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I believe the distinction between light and heavy was one of axle loading. Both used the same running gear, but many railroads had lighter rail that necessitated the use of a smaller boiler to reduce the overall per-axle load. At the moment I forget what the axle loadings were. Regards, Thomas Beutel San Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan [mailto:stefan@seaside.net] Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 1:42 PM To: HOsteam@onelist.com Subject: [HOsteam] USRA 2-8-2s From: "Stefan" <stefan@seaside.net> As far as i understand it, the WP class MK60 #306-310 were the USRA engines bought from the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern(#802-806) in 1920. These should be similar to the Athearn 2-8-2s (r perhaps the Rivs--see below) and may be a good model with some modifications. These were oil burners. However, at 320000lbs total engine wt. are these Heavy Mikes? What is the division of heavy vs. light for theseUSRA types? Best regards Stefan Lerche' Duncan, B.C. Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Looking for an easy, effective way to research an important topic? http://www.onelist.com Joining a ONElist community is your answer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keeping the memory of steam alive!
|
|
|
|
Thomas Beutel <Thomas.Beutel@...>
I should add that the Western Pacific was not one of those railroads that
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
needed reduced axle loadings because a) it was built relatively late as compared to other railroads, and thus was built to more modern standards and b) was mostly mainline with almost no small branchlines. WP could easily accommodate very heavy engines. Thomas
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Beutel Hi Stefan, I believe the distinction between light and heavy was one of axle loading. Both used the same running gear, but many railroads had lighter rail that necessitated the use of a smaller boiler to reduce the overall per-axle load. At the moment I forget what the axle loadings were. Regards, Thomas Beutel San Francisco
|
|
|
|
Leonello Pesce <leo@...>
I believe the numbers you mention were in fact Heavy Mikes.
Differences mainly are in the diameter of the boiler, but there are others I am sure. Leo From: "Stefan" <stefan@seaside.net>engines bought from the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern(#802-806) in 1920. These should be
|
|
|