Re: Logging Diseasel . . .

Wayne Hoskin Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> Is that 2-8-8-0 Mallet they are using?

Johnson Barr Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> Close Wayne, but no cigar – not even
> a tin of Vegemite.    
>
> The tractor is probably a 2-4=4-0 simple non-
> articulated duplex (I'm using "=" here, as I
> have no idea how La+Messina would disting-
> uish a duplex from an articulated or a Garrett.
> I also have no idea how to describe the trailing
> flat on which the logs are loaded, as it's appar-
> ently missing it's front truck and is resting on
> the rear of the loco's frame.  OTOH, the trail-
> er's not an engine anyway, so the Whyte lo-
> co classification system probably shouldn't be
> applied — unless the whole contraption is a
> wood-burner and the logs are its fuel.  Then
> maybe it's a 2-4=4-0+0-8-0T . . .    

Wayne Hoskin Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> I think you are over thinking this Willie! If both ax-
> les on the prime mover, sorry, tractor were pow-
> ered it would be a 2-B plus one loaded skeletal
> flat, if only one axle is driven it would be a 2-A1
> plus one loaded skeletal flat. Simple! I'm going
> for my late breakfast of Vegemite on toast now!


BUT . . .  BUT . . .  Wayne –

It was YOU who first called it a 2-8-8-0 Mallet (a steam loco, not a diseasel).  If the latter, should we count axles or wheels?  If wheels, then it's most likely a 2-D plus a one-truck skeletal flat, not a 2-B2, as it would need all the traction it could get back in the woods.    

Or, as noted by Rehunn (below), the "loco" could have a powered front axle, which would make it an A-D . . .    

- Sincerely, Willie  (Wm. Claude Johnson-Barr III, Esq.)  
          "Not All Who Have Cell-Phones Do Twitter *
          "Not All Those Who Ponder Can Think . . . "

          * Only TWITS Twitter!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2017 08:10PM by Johnson Barr.