Re: 346 Saturday afternoon

Mike Trent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> George wrote:
>
> >C-18 Chama to Cumbres = 106 tons.
>
> C-19 " " " = 92 tons.
>
>
> George, your source is not correct.
>
>
> The above C-19 data is obviously bogus, although
> it wouldn't have been rated as high as the C&S
> engines. In fact, as memory serves me, the C-19's
> leased to the C&S (343, 345, and 346 in 1936) were
> in fact rated by the C&S the same as their B-4-D
> class, which would have been at 110 Tons, slightly
> higher than the C-18, which makes perfect sense.
>
> 92 tons is not accurate. That sounds about right
> for a C-16.
>> Mike

I'm afraid George is right. According to D&RGW Alamosa Divsion Time-Table No. 122 of September 6, 1942, a C-18 was rated at 104 tons, Chama to Cumbres. A C-19 was rated at 92 tons, Chama to Cumbres. RGS Timetable No. 6 of July 18, 1948 shows a C-18 rated at 106 tons, Ridgway to Peak (Dallas Divide - 4%) and a C-19 rated for 92 tons. All this in spite of the supposedly higher tractive force and weight of a C-19.

Coker explained it some time back. It has to do with the main rod being hooked to the third driver set - smoother delivery of power or some such thing. Also you have to figure that they would learn a thing or two about spring rigging, tractive force and such from 1881 to 1896. The later Baldwins were bound to be more efficient.

It is one of those mechanical paradoxes: C-18's could just plain pull more than the C-19's.