Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

March 08, 2024 12:59PM avatar
With 17x22 cylinders, 40" drivers, and 200lb boiler pressure, each half creates 27k in tractive effort, essentially making it a "double K27" with 54K in tractive effort.

Total Weight on Drivers for various classes:

C-21 = 85650lb
C-25 = 107400lb
K-27 (superheated) =108300

Proposal = 210000 (about twice what a K27 weighs).

K-28 = 113500lb.

What we don't know is the heaviest axle loading. This is a critical piece of the puzzle. A C-25 is a bit lighter on drivers than a K-27 but it actually has a higher weight on the main (#3) driver - 28700 for C-25 vs, 27,250 for K-27. A C-25 even out-weighs a K-28 in main driver weight.

Although I have never seen a special instruction forbidding double heading of K-27's on the RGS, photographs indicate they did not do so, but did double head K-27's with smaller locomotives.

I has been written the RGS did consider buying the Unitah's engines when they went under in 1939. A Unitah 2-6-6-2 with a K-27 tender (purchased when the soak mudhens were scrapped in 1939) is an interesting idea.





This is probably the reason the RGS traded off the C-21's and C-25 for C-19's before they even set foot on the property back in 1916 or so.
Subject Author Posted

Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2 Attachments

Jimmy Blouch March 06, 2024 04:10PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

Earl March 06, 2024 04:45PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

John K March 07, 2024 05:52AM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

The Train Tracker March 06, 2024 05:02PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

The Old Boomer March 06, 2024 06:45PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

DanS March 06, 2024 06:59PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

The Old Boomer March 06, 2024 07:36PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

heatermason March 06, 2024 08:38PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

The Old Boomer March 07, 2024 06:15AM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

nickgully March 06, 2024 08:19PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

Brian Norden March 06, 2024 09:15PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

John Hewlett March 06, 2024 09:48PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

davidtltc March 07, 2024 07:32AM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

Earl March 07, 2024 09:39AM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

John K March 07, 2024 09:18AM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

davidtltc March 07, 2024 09:47AM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

Jeff Taylor March 07, 2024 06:52PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

davidtltc March 08, 2024 10:49AM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

Earl March 08, 2024 12:30PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

John K March 08, 2024 07:39PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

Earl March 08, 2024 12:59PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

John K March 08, 2024 07:34PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

Rick Steele March 11, 2024 06:16PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

RDannemann March 13, 2024 10:48AM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

Earl March 13, 2024 12:30PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

Rick Steele March 13, 2024 02:32PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

John K March 13, 2024 08:08PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

Andrew Roth April 10, 2024 07:05AM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

Kelly Anderson March 14, 2024 03:34PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

trainrider47 March 21, 2024 12:35PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

Kelly Anderson March 21, 2024 05:10PM

Re: Proposed RGS 2-8-8-2

trainrider47 March 21, 2024 05:49PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login