Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

10 & 14 vs 190s

January 23, 2004 02:35AM
I'm not surprised that 12 can out pull 190. 10, 14, and 12 are comparable to WP&Y's 4-6-0 #62 in terms of weight and TE. While the 190s could never handle more than 92 tons up the 20 mile hill out of Skagway, 62 could pull 130 tons. Likewise the SVRy mikes WP&Y 80 & 81 could haul 160 tons and the WP&Y 70 series mikes could haul 170 tons. The 190s and their 42" and meter gauge sisters were designed for the flatlands of North Africa and India, so it's not too surprising that they never did well in hilly country.
After the war the Army traded 192 and 196 to the WP&Y for 61 and 62 which were worn out by the war effort. The Army tried to sell the other nine 190s to the WP&Y who said no-way and instead bought two more 70s, which were designed for the White Pass.
In the end, the Army shipped 197, 198, 199 & 200 back to the lower-48 for sale and salvage, and left 190, 191, 193, 194, and 195 for the WP&Y to run, sell or scrap as they saw fit. It's a good thing that the WP&Y sold 190 and 192, otherwise we wouldn't have such fine operating examples of this unique 3ft gauge wartime MacArthur design.
Subject Author Posted

ET&WNC 10 & 14 *LINK*

WP&Ymike January 20, 2004 11:01PM

Re: ET&WNC 10 & 14

rick b January 21, 2004 01:53AM

There was a lot of confusion in those days.

Bruce Pryor January 21, 2004 09:44PM

Re: There was a lot of confusion in those days.

WP&Ymike January 22, 2004 12:42AM

it is Trains Sept '43

WP&Ymike January 22, 2004 12:53AM

Re: it is Trains Sept '43

rick b January 22, 2004 01:30AM

in WP&YR service Sept '42

WP&Ymike January 22, 2004 01:59AM

Re: There was a lot of confusion in those days.

rick b January 22, 2004 01:05AM

Re: There was a lot of confusion in those days.

WP&Ymike January 22, 2004 01:40AM

Re: There was a lot of confusion in those days.

rick b January 22, 2004 11:31AM

Photos and article *LINK*

Bruce Pryor January 22, 2004 08:09AM

Re: Photos and article

Tim S January 22, 2004 10:57PM

10 & 14 vs 190s

WP&Ymike January 23, 2004 02:35AM

Re: 190 tenderss

Brian Norden January 24, 2004 03:07PM

Re: 190 tenderss

Tim S January 24, 2004 11:00PM

Re: 190 tenders

WP&Ymike January 24, 2004 11:47PM

Re: 190 tenders

Tim S January 24, 2004 11:59PM

Re: 190 tenders

WP&Ymike January 25, 2004 12:27AM

190 oil tender photo

Bruce Pryor January 25, 2004 09:41PM

Re: 190 oil tender photo *LINK*

Brian Norden January 25, 2004 11:01PM

Re: 190 oil tender photo

WP&Ymike January 25, 2004 11:31PM

Re: 190 oil tender photo

Bruce Pryor January 26, 2004 06:37AM

Re: 190 oil tender photo *LINK*

Tim S January 26, 2004 03:15PM

Another 190 photo for Tim *NM* *PIC*

Bruce Pryor January 26, 2004 10:10PM

Re: Photos and article

Casey Carlson January 24, 2004 12:50PM

Re: Really.....

Jerry Huck January 24, 2004 01:34PM

Re: Really.....

Casey Carlson January 24, 2004 03:07PM

Re: Really.....

jbbane January 24, 2004 03:22PM

JB, you forgot

RBrinton January 24, 2004 05:56PM

Re: JB, you forgot

jbbane January 24, 2004 07:13PM

Re: JB, you forgot

Taylor Rush January 25, 2004 12:13PM

Re: JB, you forgot

jbbane January 25, 2004 06:04PM

Re: JB,That was Catapiller

RBrinton January 25, 2004 09:03PM

So I shouldn't mention

James R. Temple January 25, 2004 09:47PM

Don't go this far with the Heisler streamlining! *NM* *LINK* *PIC*

Bruce Pryor January 25, 2004 10:50PM

Re: Photos and article

WP&Ymike January 24, 2004 01:46PM

Re: Photos and article *LINK*

Tim S January 24, 2004 11:17PM

Re: Photos and article *PIC*

WP&Ymike January 25, 2004 12:18AM

Re: Photos and article

Tim S January 25, 2004 12:40AM

Engine House Registers

WP&Ymike January 25, 2004 12:50AM

Thanks, Mike

Bruce Pryor January 25, 2004 10:53PM



Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.