With the recent discussion of saddletank steam locomotives I thought I would point out some advantages of these steamers:

First, a saddletank being smaller, would be much more economical to run than a bigger steam locomotive, providing the job is not beyond its capabilities.

Second, it is probably a much simpler machine, thus much less likely to have things "go wrong."

Third, concering aesthetics, it may not look quite as "right" on a passenger train as a tender equipped steamer, but the sounds and smells are just the same.

Fourth, being smaller, it is less imposing to younger riders and they may accept it better.

Fifth, it runs as well both in forward and reverse.

And finally, I had the personal experience this past Memorial Day of going up to the Little River Railroad and riding their train out of Coldwater, Michigan east to Quincy. Number 110, their 4-6-2 was in the shop for repairs that day so 0-4-0T #1 (ex-YS&T) handled the consist of two lightweight ex-Milwaukee Road passenger cars. The engine had absolutely no problems with the train. On the way out of Coldwater, the saddletank runs backwards but at Quincy, runs around her train and runs forward back to Coldwater. And thus the final advantage; you could actually stand in the vestibule of the coach and watch the engineer and fireman RIGHT THERE, doing their jobs! Something you could never do with a "regular" engine unless they allowed you up in the coal pile of the tender.

Les

Remarkable little locomotives, saddletankers. When you think about it, they probably have a greater water capacity than their side-tank cousins. In winter, the water would be less likely to get cold. The overall length allows them to be stored in minimal areas. Six drivers could handle most two car tourist trains. Tank locos use a minimal fuel supply, carried in a cab located bunker. Just nice, easy locos. So many small locomotives, mine locos have been rescued by hobbiests and collectors, while there remain partially disassembled examples in scrapyards and desolate locations. The two recently discovered in England under the junk in an old shed, are still in remarkable condition, and may need minimum restoration to fire up.
I don't believe tank locos are necessarily less imposing to children. Heck, any steam locomotive is going to impress a kid! But for the job they were meant to do, tank locos are pretty sweet!

Out at SRI, we use Flagg Coal Co. #75 (an 0-4-0 saddletank) for our summer train rides, and other short trips.

It costs next to nothing to run the thing, and it does not take forever to warm up.

The main advantage however (and from what I have seen, most operations do not allow this, or even allow people out of their seats while the train is moving), is that we allow people to stand in the vestibule of the first car, and being a saddletanker, the guests are offered a clear view of the cab.

You would not believe how many positive comments we have gotten from the public about how they are able to actually watch everything that is going on in the cab during their train ride. Several people each trip thank us for letting them stand out there and watch. It seems to be a big hit, and it is too bad that alot of places do not allow similar opportunities.

As for the pulling power, FCC #75 has pulled I believe four coaches and a caboose without much of a problem.


At first, I thought the thing was quite ugly, but it has definitely grown on me, and now I find the little 0-4-0 more interesting than PM 1225. They are neat little peices of machinery.

I believe tank engines do actually relate well to children - thanks to our little blue friend, almost every child has "tank engine" in its vocabulary, but very few are likely to relate to "superpower berkshire" or "light USRA decapod".

Having been extremely involved with several over the past few years, they can and do fill some roles well in the tourist railroad and railroad museum industry. If a museum is sited in a yard or roundhouse, what better to interpret switching and turntable goat operation? Little industrial branchlines running into quarries or woods suit them well. They are at home near mines, or handling sugar beet cars, or hauling cars to and from a textile mill. How many of us are actually equipped with trackage of a length and quality to truly interpret mainline fast heavyweight Pullman service on a frequent basis?

Besides, great tank engines are so ugly they cross over into cute, sort of like the skinny little stray cat with huge pointy ears and the smudge on its nose that cries at the back door for a meal now and again. Never win a show but you can't help but feed it.

Ride the open flatcars at New Hope Valley RR behind 17 some day. It really pleases the passengers, and doesn't cost much to run.

That being said, I must confess being really impressed with a 0-6-0 with a HUGE tender I inspected over the past few days - never saw one before built with thermic syphons, overfire jets, front end throttle, etc - the kind of equipment I would have expected to find on a superpower berk. I think I'd accept a tender engine with those qualifications gladly for most of the purposes mentioned above.

dave

I think a double headed train with SRI's and NHVRy's Vulcan 0-4-0T engines would be a sight to see!