Re: WP&Y Mallet?

Earl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pretty small articulated. Weight about the same
> as a K-36, with slightly less power. Smaller than
> a Uintah engine.
>
> Note the proposal was for a Simple Articulated.
> Not a Mallet. Mallets were compound engines using
> high pressure steam in the rear cylinders and
> exhaust steam from the rear cylinders to drive the
> front cylinders. A Simple Articulated uses high
> pressure steam to both sets of cylinders.

Thank You, Earl, i know i should remember all of that, so most of the time when I see a simple slide on the front of a 2-6-6-2 or a 2-8-8-2 it is a Mallet. So the Uintah 50 and 51 were actually Simple Articulated locomotives. It seems reverse to me but that is how i need to remember it. So on the Union Pacific 3985 Challenger and on the 4014 Big Boy they have two exhaust lines for smoke stacks out of their smoke box, and they are also Simple Articulated the spent steam from both pairs of cylinders travels from there respected places to the smoke box pulling spent gases with it in the form of smoke out of the stacks? Thanks for the input, it always helps me and probably others to get the correct information.

You know it really amazes me how a locomotive can be operated with little or no smoke coming out of the stacks, I understand it has to do with the right mixture of coal/oil to oxygen and heat in the combustion chamber but I would think that no matter what there would be waste in the form of smoke at some point, usually while the locomotive is stopped. I for one appreciated the smoke, especiallly when photographing, if there is no smoke how do the viewers of the photographs think the locomotive is in motion. It will be a new challenge for me to photograph 489 not having her usual smoke trail to follow. I only wish that they would have started with 488 in the oil conversion. Sorry small tangent.

Still a Student,

Dave