Challengers and coal

[NW Modeling List]

That's right, Mark, but if you'll check you'll find that the Clinchfield 
redrafted them by getting rid of the double smokestack arrangement in favor 
of a single smokestack like their earlier Challengers.

EdKing


--------------------------------------------------
From: "NW Modeling List" <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:42 AM
To: "NW Modeling List" <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>
Subject: Challengers and coal


> --- On Wed, 2/24/10, NW Modeling List <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org> wrote:

>> Don’t know; but I have

>> witnessed the result of using bad

>> coal when the Southern was running the C&O 2-8-4 on an

>> excursion from

>> Appalachia to Norton. They simply ran out of steam,

>> stalled, and had to sit

>> still and build up enough steam to move the train up the

>> grade. I would guess

>> that better coal would make the Challenger steam easier.

>> The implication is

>> that it would increase the effective output. (as opposed to

>> theoretical

>> output)      Jim

>> Nichols

> ===============

>

> Trying to keep this on the lite side, I believe the Challengers 

> Clinchfield got from D&RGW were of the same design as the last UP 

> Challengers, so they must have run on some decent coal on CRR. ;-)

>

> Mark Peele

> Catonsville, MD

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________________

> NW-Modeling-List at nwhs.org

> To change your subscription go to

> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-modeling-list

> Browse the NW-Modeling-List archives at

> http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/