I agree with Paul on the speed issue. I think, also, the DL&W preferred to
use pushers on the grades rather than to have a beheamoth that couldn't get
out of its own way once it got out onto the racetrack portions of the
mainline. Also--and this may explain it more than anything
else--Lackawanna management was notoriously conservative, and I think they
probably frowned on the articulated technology. (Just a guess.)
Chuck
"Tupaczewski, Paul R
(Paul)"
<paultup_@_lucent.com> To: "'RJFlei@aol.com'" <RJFlei@aol.com>
Sent by: erielack_@_lists.railfan.net
erielack-owner_@_lists. cc:
railfan.net Subject:
RE: (erielack) Lackawanna Articulateds
09/02/2004 09:26 AM
Please respond to
"Tupaczewski, Paul R
(Paul)"
Rick,
Aren't most articulated NOT known for their great speed? The
DL&W prided itself on its fast service, and I think an articulated would
not have served that purpose?
- Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RJFlei_@_aol.com [mailto:RJFlei@aol.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 5:59 AM
> To: erielack_@_lists.railfan.net
> Subject: (erielack) Lackawanna Articulateds
>
>
> List,
> I know the Lackawanna had a large fleet of Poconos,
> Mountains, and
> Mikados. I was just wondering why, considering the heavy
> grades of this railroad,
> that they never invested in articulated locomotives like the D&H's
> Challengers for mountain territory? Anyone out there have an
> idea? Did they ever have
> one on the drawing board?
>
> Rick Fleischer
> Cortland, Oh.
> ELHS # 1426
>
------------------------------
This HTML page is © 2000-2008 Blue Moon Online System and The Railfan Network
This page and the data contained therein may not be reproduced
for any form of commercial use without the explicit permission
of J. Henry Priebe Jr. or his duly authorized agent.