In the day's of steam when an engineer was operating an articulated or mallet was his pay rate increased or did it remain the same no matter what type of locomotive he was operating?
thank you
Al

azubal@nycap.rr.com

> In the day's of steam when an engineer was
> operating an articulated or mallet was his
> pay rate increased or did it remain the same
> no matter what type of locomotive he was
> operating?
> thank you
> Al

Yes, pay rate was partly based on "weight on drivers", so engine crew got more money for a 2-8-8-2 than for a 2-8-0, with all other afctors being equal.


hpincus@mindspring.com

> Yes, pay rate was partly based on
> "weight on drivers",

Still is.

>so engine
> crew got more money for a 2-8-8-2 than for a
> 2-8-0, with all other afctors being equal.

If the weight on drivers is the same for these two locomotives, the axle loading of the 2-8-8-2 would be less but the pay rate would be the same.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the LIMA loco works lose millions by falsifying the weight of the 2-6-6-6 allegheny, and when C&O found out they had to back pay the crews, to which they sent the billl to LIMA. LIMA therefore never made a penny on the 2-6-6-6 engines sold to C&O.

Eric Hirsimaki's book on Lima says something to that effect. From what the book says though, the C&O's "Motive Power Committee" had a lot to do with the problem. There were a constant succession of engineers monitoring Lima's design work and people would arbitrarily suggest that things like the rods should be "beefed up" because they didn't "look right". This happened repeatedly during the design process so that the minor changes added up to a huge weight increase. The C&O also seems to have been involved in the skewed official weight measurements. I believe the C&O was later sued by the engineer's union and then they blamed it all on Lima.

Hugh

> Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the
> LIMA loco works lose millions by falsifying
> the weight of the 2-6-6-6 allegheny, and
> when C&O found out they had to back pay
> the crews, to which they sent the billl to
> LIMA. LIMA therefore never made a penny on
> the 2-6-6-6 engines sold to C&O.


whodom2001@yahoo.com

> Eric Hirsimaki's book on Lima says something
> to that effect. From what the book says
> though, the C&O's "Motive Power
> Committee" had a lot to do with the
> problem. There were a constant succession of
> engineers monitoring Lima's design work and
> people would arbitrarily suggest that things
> like the rods should be "beefed
> up" because they didn't "look
> right". This happened repeatedly during
> the design process so that the minor changes
> added up to a huge weight increase. The
> C&O also seems to have been involved in
> the skewed official weight measurements. I
> believe the C&O was later sued by the
> engineer's union and then they blamed it all
> on Lima.

> Hugh

Gene Huddleston's Allegheny book states that the first 10 engines weighed a staggering 778,000 lbs, vs. the 724,500 lb "official weight." The front engine carried 86,000 lbs on each axle, and the rear unit toted 83,000 on each one. The pilot wheels supported 74,000 lbs and the trailer carried 197,000 lbs. The Advisory Mech. Committee is given much of the blame for the over-run. The AMC is said to have increased the size and weight of the main and side rods four times. Sounds like too many chefs in the galley, doesn't it? Also puzzling about these lokies is C&O's failure to exploit their potential. The booster was deleted and the cylinder bore was reduced, cutting both t.e. and h.p. And the r.r. then failed to effectively use the power that was there, basically continuing previous operating practices, despite the increased power of these new engines. Hard to explain. The book is "The Allegheny: Lima's Finest," by Eugene Huddleston and Thomas Dixon, Jr, pub. by Hundman Pub. Highly recommended. Jim Tighe, Wapak, OH.

justighe@bright.net