You telling me that in person is still one of my highlight moments from this summer, lol.

@@Hyce777 Nice that I left an impression. By the way I was the vacation of my live 8000 miles through the grater US south west. (some stops: Vegas, Grand Canyon, Denver, Houston, Phoenix, LA, Frisco, Redwoods, Sacramento , back to Vegas)

Amen on that, brother~ I mean, just look at her~ These hips don't lie~

So do you guys plan on expanding operational trackage in the future instead of your circle piece of operating track?

491 is a hecken chonker

Drunken Belly Scratches!

I can think of a reason for the Big Boy and other Mallet-articulated locomotives (mostly not actually true Mallet) to be narrower than you might expect for a standard gauge locomotive: The Mallet articulation means that the long boiler sticks out over the side of the front drivers on a curve. This was especially prominent on a x-8-8-x locomotive like the Big Boy. Actually, I'm not sure if you even could take a Big Boy on some of the eastern railroads -- it might hit objects on the outsides of curves. Maybe this is why the heavy haulers of the eastern railroads tended to be x-6-6-x or have rather small driving wheels (like the 2 Triplex types, 2-8-8-8-x); the Norfolk and Western Y6-series seems to be a partial exception (maybe they had better trackside clearances?).

Well the k37s were converted from standard gauge inside frame Consolidations to outside frame Mikados in the 1930ies

@@steffenrosmus9177 Sort of, but not really -- they reused boilers, tenders, and some other parts from some Class 19/C-41 2-8-0 locomotives, but they had to make an awful lot of parts completely new, so much that this doesn't really count as a conversion.

Same.

I can agree with this XD

That's quite fascinating.

Outside frames on early locomotives in europe because the designers at that time are afraid of the center of mass going higher. So much so that they even have those ridiculous designs where the axles punches right through the boiler for the ultimate under slung boiler design. Another contributing factor as to why they want the boiler so low in the first place is because the entire running gear is in between the frames. They are forced to raise the boiler for more clearance. As to why the running gear is in between the frame, the designers are afraid of the crank axle snapping in half due to the moment distance between the applied force. Basically, keep the pistons closer together to keep the force concentrated. It must be done this because the metallurgy of the crank axle is still catching up. This was a time were they want more strength on the material but the processes on making that material is long ways away.

The K37 is a lowrider in all reality. It is a channeled and lowered standard gauge locomotive.

There's a controller that lives on top of the head that makes that happen. How it works I'm not sure myself!

@@Hyce777 Stare at it until you understand it.

It'd be broad gauge.

@@Hyce777 So the Russian mainline?

It would, if you took the backhead off... lol

@@Hyce777 Jesus, really puts 491s size in perspective.

Were they tasty?

@@burnerheinz I have had them before, they were good and made well in a k-37 kitchen but they were wheel-y hard to swallow.

@@burnerheinz iron’s good for the body, steel is good for the soul

L I M E S with those!!

That is very correct, the PRR had problems with their Duplex engines with boilers expanding more than the frame. A large locomotive boiler could expand upwards of an inch after it was really hot.

All steam locomotives have to cope with the expansion of the boiler when it’s hot. The frames and running gear will expand as well but only tiny amounts compared to the boiler. The usual way of allowing for this is to fix the boiler at the smokebox end and allow the firebox to move. Of course, the weight of the boiler has to be carried but those supports are designed to allow it to slide.

nope.

That's what I've always heard as well. Not honestly sure.

They were fairly popular in the UK, where clearances were and still are REALLY narrow (can't even fit a standard shipping container). Edit: The situation there produces a result that is related, but not the same: The British locomotives I am thinking of had the wheels AND the cylinders inside. More modern UK locomotives had a more conventional design, but even so, you still can't fit a standard shipping container on much of the UK rail network.

We've got a lot! 491, 346, and 20 are the three that operate, steam-wise. We also have the DL&G 191, D&RGW 318 on display that we own, then RGS 74, westside 12 and westside 14 on display owned by others that are all steam.

Nope. It's wider.

The loop has had the 40, 44, and 111, that are all outside frame 2-8-0's for a number of years. Likely one of those. :)

@@Hyce777 I WAS RATHER CURIOUS ABOUT THIS TYPE AND WONDERED IF THEY WERE BUILT NEW AS SUCH OR WERE OLDER STANDARD GUAGE SMALLER LOCOMOTIVES REBILT AND DOWNSIZED TO MAKE BIGGER NARROW GUAGE POWER! I SEED TO WORK FOR SANTA FE AND BECAME QUITE INTERESTED IN THEIR STEAM POWER MAITENENCE AND REBUILDS! THEY DID A LOT OF STUFF EXCHANGING BOILERS BETWEEN DIFFERENT CLASSES TO REBUILD OLDER LOCOMOTIVES INTO YARD SWITCHERS AND LOCAL TRAIN POWER! THE AT&SF 769 NOW RESIDING AT MADRID NEW MEXICO IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN KITBASH OF THAT SORT!!

well, see, it physically has to do that no matter what and they don't move, lol

Yes, but with bigger cylinders than would otherwise fit

Mathhhhhhhhh

I guess there is, and it differs based on valve type. Your theoretical max speed is limited by the number of movements your cylinder can make while still being effective. That gives a max rpm, which in combination with wheel circumference gives the maximum speed

There certainly are a lot of plusses and minuses; that'd make for a good video. :)

Another thing is that with the springs and bearings inside the wheels, they are much closer together, so the center of mass of the engine has more leverage on them when it tries to swing from side to side: this makes the locomotive more prone to rocking back and forth. Putting these outside the wheels gives a more stable ride and can prevent the thing from tipping over. On engines with inside valve gear (like Stephenson), having the gear and the frames inside the wheels made this space awfully crowded, especially up in Maine where the wheels were sometimes less than two feet back to back!

When I started working at the Museum one of the most confusing things to me was all the railroads with Rio Grande in the name. Denver & Rio Grande became the Denver & Rio Grande Western after being reorganized, Rio Grande Southern was Otto Perry's San Juan route. than San Luis and Rio Grande....maybe it has to do with the river?

Well... for context, the Rio Grande river's headwaters are in south central Colorado. The Rio Grande was part of General Palmer's original dream to reach Mexico from Denver. A little history... As the D&RG was building south out of Denver, when they got to the Arkansas River, the Santa Fe (AT&SF) had already built north over Raton Pass and was building up the Arkansas River (Royal Gorge) to tap the rich mines around Leadville. The D&RG took this as an affront to their territory and the Royal Gorge War broke out where they were shooting at each other. It was settled in the courts that the Santa Fe can have the Raton Pass (which meant the D&RG grading over the pass had to be abandoned) but the D&RG gets the Royal Gorge route which pushed the D&RG to become a Colorado mountain railroad. The railroad did eventually reach Santa Fe from Antonito. And they reached the Rio Grande river in Alamosa! From Utah, another railroad (the Rio Grande Western) was also building into the mountains. Eventually the Denver and Rio Grande and the Rio Grande Western merged and formed the Denver and Rio Grande Western. The Rio Grande Southern was formed by Otto Mears and it actually formed a bridge between the Denver and Rio Grande's Ouray Branch and Durango (on the Silverton Branch) which is possibly how it got the Rio Grande in it's name although it's nowhere near the river of that name. About this same time of the D&RGW merger, they started to standard gauge their mainline from Denver to Ogden which was on the UPRR. The Silver Crash of 1893 caused many mines to close and so there was little need to change over the narrow gauge. EXCEPT later 1905, the Farmington branch was built from Durango as standard gauge (on a narrow gauge railroad!) That tracks was built into the oil fields and was a political ploy to keep the Santa Fe from building into the same area. There was even plans to regrade and rebuild the Cumbres Pass and relay it all as Standard Gauge. Of course it was all a rouge and the tracks were narrow gauged and the railroad was kept busy hauling pipes to the oil fields and oil out in tank cars. This did mean the loads had to be transferred in Alamosa. There was also the Monarch Branch to the CF&I limestone mine (to make steel in Pueblo) which was narrow gauge and those car loads were transferred to standard gauge using a big device they called the barrel where they would roll the high side gondolas over and dump into a standard gauge car below. This was done in Salida. Eventually as the railroad removed all the narrow gauge railroads out of Salida (Marshall Pass especially) the Monarch Branch was standard gauged and ran for a brief while before being abandoned and scrapped. The name "Rio Grande" for the railroad itself most likely came about as a "nickname" for the railroad (also called "the Grande") after the "toilet seat" Moffat Pass logo was replaced with the speed lettering Rio Grande on the locomotives and cabooses. And as for the Moffat tunnel and how it became part of the Rio Grande is another story for another time. I hope this helps. And if I got something wrong, let me know. :-) I did a lot of Colorado railroad history in college in Durango but that was a LONG time ago when the SP, D&RGW and UP were separate still.

@RGS Rob Herronen aka Bigfoot it did a bit, though with how my brain works I'd needs a map showing these locations and routes for me to truly understand.

I could have sworn to having read somewhere about somebody doing the opposite -- rebuilt a standard gauge steam locomotive to an outside-frame narrow gauge locomotive.

Courtesy of Nick Norton in a different comments subthread: Boilers, tenders, and some other parts from D&RGW standard gauge Class 19/C-41 were used to build new D&RGW class K-37 locomotives.

Not likely.

He mentioned in the video where some builders did that.

I am not aware of any, but I wouldn't be surprised if one does exist.

Not that I've heard of, but I wouldn't be surprised if one existed. That'd be a loading gauge nightmare.

There were a few crazy ones like the Saxon XV HTV with mixed inside and outside frames. Regular ones were (quickly phased out due to being outdated in 1925) de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayerische_B_IX de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayerische_C_III

I could have sworn some weird UK locomotives had both outside frames and inside cylinders, but now I can't find a picture.

One example is the famous "City of Truro". Afaik the Great Western Railway also built some inside frames locomotives for broad gauge meant to be converted to standard gauge outside frame locomotives during the gauge conversion phase.

@@fritz46 Thanks -- and Google even finds the Wikipedia article on this and other sources of pictures of this locomotive. But the "City" class was built new this way years after the conversion was finished. The Wikipedia article on locomotives of the Great Western claims that some locomotives were converted, and the article on GWR class 388 even lists some as being converted from standard gauge to broad gauge and back to standard gauge, but these don't show pictures of converted locomotives.

Loading gauge, lol. When the railroad is designed to deal with a certain max width...

Oh plenty of video to come from EBT. They just take a minute to put together. :)

Maintaining outside framed locomotives sucks ass. That's false.

@@Hyce777 Maybe for the oiling greasing part but the heavy maintenance, like the suspension, and running gear you're going to say that the 346 and 20 are easier to work on?

@@Dallen9 yeah... Half the hubs, the springs are a zillion times less heavy, they don't need to go as far in (despite being inside framed the wheels + rods are narrower than the counterweights, rods, and walschaerts motion) It's not all based on inside vs. outside framed but there's hardly anything that's easier to deal with on the big engine.

@@Hyce777 I bet.... You should probably make a video on this topic as like a in-depth, behind the steam, or 101 video.

Yes, check out the 10:30 mark in our recent Big Trains Tour video on 491 - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pLJnncWF3qqZcmQ.html

I think the boiler was made along side standard gauge boilers but only the boilers.

The museum itself replied, but the short answer is yes, the boiler and domes were re used, and the tender was converted.