Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Re: Why 0-6-0?

Forum List Message List New Topic Print View

Steve Thompson

December 20, 2005 11:02AM

Switchers needed all weight on the drivers for traction, and because of low speeds, didn't need the help of lead or trailing trucks to negotiate curves. It was also cheaper to build them with no extras.
Also, again due to low speeds, they were not boiler/firebox limited, so didn't need a huge firebox to produce high sustained horsepower, thus didn't have high weights that would have required a trailing truck. There were a few exceptions, of course!

Reply Quote

Message List Previous Message Next Message

RSS

Subject	Author	Posted
Colorado Springs D&RGW question LINK	Bob Yarger	December 20, 2005 09:21AM
Why 0-6-0?	Josh McNeal	December 20, 2005 10:56AM
Re: Why 0-6-0?	Steve Thompson	December 20, 2005 11:02AM
Re: Why 0-6-0?	J.B.Bane	December 20, 2005 03:14PM
Re: Why 0-6-0?	Raul Nemkish	December 20, 2005 06:55PM
Re: Colorado Springs D&RGW question	stuart olson	December 20, 2005 09:54PM
Re: Colorado Springs D&RGW question	Derrell Poole	December 21, 2005 04:35PM

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

488 stops for water at Los Pinos tank on closing day Oct. 1979. Photo courtesy Don Richter

The NGDF was started by Don Richter and is currently operated in his memory by Nathan Holmes and others. Others who have contributed to the upkeep of this board are (in no particular order): Charles McCandless, Everett Lueck, Ted Wilton, Cole Adams, James Bane, John Moellmer, Jon Bentz, Linn Moedinger, lloyd lehrer, Rod Jensen, John Craft, Steven Forney, Herb Kelsey, Bill Ramaley, Russ Sperry (El Russo Loco), Josh McNeal, John West, Jim Armstrong, Bob Bergstrom, Greg Scholl, Blake Forbes Doug van Veelen and Mark Fuller.

Re: Why 0-6-0?

Colorado Springs D&RGW question *LINK*

Why 0-6-0?

Re: Why 0-6-0?

Re: Why 0-6-0?

Re: Why 0-6-0?

Re: Colorado Springs D&RGW question

Re: Colorado Springs D&RGW question

Colorado Springs D&RGW question LINK