Chiloquinruss Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> So if two-foot is narrow, that makes three-foot 50%
> bigger, so no talk!  LOL, I love youse guys!

hank Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> And for your contemplative fun, just think how big
> those UP engines would have been if built with the
> same percentage overhang vs track gauge as the
> two-foot stuff!
>
> PS  I don't have the data on, for example, SR #23,
> but if you work the calculation using D&RGW Class
> K-36 (extreme width [over cylinders] 10' 5" on three-
> foot gauge rails) you'll come up with about 18' total
> width!  Now THAT would be a Big Boy!


Or even more exciting, Hank -

What if the six-foot gauge of some of the earliest railroads had become the standard for most construction, at least in the northern hemisphere.  Your hypothetical Really-Big-Boy would be 18' × 72" ÷ 56.5" ≅ 22.94', or nearly 23 feet wide!!    

- Sincerely, Willie  (Wm. Claude Johnson-Barr III, Esq.)  
          "Not All Who Have Cell-Phones Do Twitter *
          "Not All Those Who Ponder Can Think . . . "

          * Only TWITS Twitter!