Re: Uintah 2-6-6-2s and the Rio Grande

If I recall correctly, the difference mainly was that the 2-6-6-2s proved to be more slippery on the SV, but could still pull.

The SV added tenders upon arrival but left the side tanks on to make sure that the 2-6-6-2s would be OK. I believe the locomotives were run with the tanks dry so they would not have the benefit of the weight of the water during this testing period.

Evidently, the SV felt the pulling power was fine and removed the tanks. From the photos I have seen of the 2-6-6-2 on the SV, they handled some long, loaded trains.

So perhaps the question is not of how much they could pull with or without the tanks, but how slippery they were when working with a heavy train?

I am no expert, but would like an answer if anyone can explain this to a layman.