Subject:
|
Re: Stupid question about steam engines
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Apr 2000 22:11:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2358 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> Of course, more wasn't better. More wheels meant less weight per wheel thus
> protecting rails which couldn't support that much weight. Generally speaking,
> this is why Euro..er stuff has more wheels per pound than US stuff. So • actually,
> less is better... <g,d,r>
>
> -John
I'm not I understand why you say less is better. Your point about spreading
the weight over more wheels to protect the track is correct. The Garratts are
used on narrow guage as well as standard guage track. To run that big an
engine on narrow guage track you need to spread out the load. Also the wheel
configuration allowed the Garratts to handle much tighter curves than a
"typical" articulated locomotive. A Garratt would be right at home on the
tight curves of Lego track.
Regards,
Matt
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Stupid question about steam engines
|
| Of course, more wasn't better. More wheels meant less weight per wheel thus protecting rails which couldn't support that much weight. Generally speaking, this is why Euro..er stuff has more wheels per pound than US stuff. So actually, less is (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
