MSRRKevin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never fully understood the advantages of this
> design vs having the cab moved back just a few
> more feet. Then again, not sure what advantage
> moving it back just a few feet (such as on 315)
> would add. And if the locomotive is an oil
> burner, not sure what difference it makes at all.
> I assume D&RGW moved the cabs back on 360,361, and
> 375.
The biggest disadvantage to moving the cab back that I can see; before trailing trucks, the cab sat on the main frame, or a short rear frame extension. Every inch the cab would be moved back would require re-engineering this rear frame. Eventually, you would run into the problem that the builders had to have faced; you need an extra wheel under the cab. Like most technology, the first renditions of steam locomotives were built for moving stuff, not comfort. Later modifications started to accommodate those that would control said engine...
I am not sure on the C-21's early stages, but the 375 originally had a longer cab, but was still right up against the back head. I guess the odd thing is, most companies didn't overbuild a cab for the smaller engines. Comfort was a luxury that was not afforded. When the larger superpower engines came about, the cabs barley encompassed the firebox / boiler....
Casey