Re: Sumpter Valley Railway 250 & 251

Obviously the factor of adhesion was better with full side tanks, but I believe this discussion will be found in past NGDiss. threads. The engine had to be capable of working on the Uintah with the tanks a good deal less than full and maybe acceptable down to a few inches of water left. On the other hand accounts seem to indicate that the front engine was slippery on the SVRy without the tanks until some dead weight was added via a layer of old rail placed on the running boards. Clearly the tanks had to impair visibility, but we have all seen some pretty big std. ga. articulated engines with side tanks. With the 19 and 20's tenders behind the engines, there can't have been any purpose to leaving the side tanks except perhaps for experimental purposes to determine if replacement weight would be needed. Accounts seem to indicate that the engines had to be de-rated in tonnage from what might have been expected after they went to central America, but perhaps the Guatemalans didn't add the dead weight back on that had been stripped off for shipment?