Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: 168 and 315

February 01, 2017 06:25PM
Earl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, a wee bit up grade from the present Coxo
> highway crossing. Yes, that is a snowshed in the
> distance.
>
> I saw this pic years ago and I'm still impressed
> with it. It shows an interesting practice of
> using the "road engine" as the "helper" on the
> hill. I've also seen this practice on Cerro
> Summit. My take is they didn't want to put that
> much strain on the T12's wooden tender frame, the
> Mudhen was cut in behind it.
>
> But, when you think about it, when they used
> C-class engines to help, it took the same amount
> of power from the second engine to help the T12 up
> the hill. Whether it was a C-19 or K-27, the same
> amount of power was needed to get up the hill on
> time. So, that theory doesn't hold much water.

Actually, your theory holds up well. A K-27 is capable of pulling much harder than a C-19, If the T-12 should slip, or for some reason suffer a mechanical failure, the full drawbar pull of the K would probably turn the wooden frame on the tender into splinters...

Robert
Subject Author Posted

168 and 315

dougvv January 28, 2017 11:16PM

Re: 168 and 315

CharlieMcCandless January 29, 2017 04:14AM

Re: 168 and 315

dougvv January 29, 2017 04:25AM

Re: 168 and 315

hank January 29, 2017 07:26PM

Re: 168 and k-27 Attachments

davegrandt January 30, 2017 12:22PM

Re: 168 and k-27

dougvv January 30, 2017 12:31PM

Re: 168 and k-27

Jeff Ramsey January 30, 2017 10:55PM

Re: 168 and k-27

vince heying January 31, 2017 03:34AM

Re: 168 and k-27

Chris Walker January 31, 2017 04:56AM

Re: 168 and k-27

Wayne Hoskin January 31, 2017 05:12AM

Re: 168 and 315

Earl January 31, 2017 11:00AM

Re: 168 and 315

rdamurphy February 01, 2017 06:25PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login