Mountcastle wrote:I think that a fair comparison supposes both locomotives as either operational or as static, and either both in good repair or both derelict. In either case, 14 is superior, as it is more aethetically pleasing. No. 14 is larger, more majestic of design, and imparts a more romantic aura than does No. 18. Her classic Baldwin good-looks (and I don't mean Alec, Stephen or William) make her a genuine beauty. Furthermore, No. 14 will actually be an authentic antique in seven years' time, whereas No. 18 has a ways to go, yet. For all of those reasons, No. 14 makes either a better static display or a better romantic ruin than No. 18. {/quote]
I disagree. The only objective argument here is that 14 has seven years to become an antique... and my research indicates that even that isn't an actual "written in stone" rule, just a guideline. Further, 18 has only an additional three years to attain the same status. By this guideline, C&O 614, N&W 611 and UP 844 are all worthless, being built in 1948, 1950 and 1944 respectively (Lima, Roanoke & ALCO-Schenectady)
Mountcastle wrote:As for which is more suited to touristy passenger service (again, all things being equal), No. 14 wins again, for all of the reasons given above, and for its wheel arrangement (as has been argued elsewhere). With respect to which locomotive offers the superior cab ride, one might argue in favor of No. 18 on account of her smaller boiler and roomier cab. On the other hand, No. 18's whistle is located on the fireman's side, making the experience utterly unbearable without earplugs. Not so with No. 14 and her engineer side whistle. This is on the assumption that by "cab ride" one means a guest riding in the fireman's seat, of course. Apropos of nothing mentioned thus far, No. 14's bell has a grander sound than No. 18's. In every way, No. 14 was, for so many years, the flagship of the fleet, and the 'grande dame' of the A&A.
Again, this is all subjective and in the eye of the beholder, and therefore not applicable to a debate regarding the adequacy of an engine for excursion service. Granted, I will provide you a point regarding the wheel arrangement.
A recent article (within the last five years) in Trains discussed this point thoroughly, and the consensus did in fact argue that the x-6-x arrangement was superior for excursion service. However, I argue differently for a main reason... 18 is lighter than 14. Because of the lower weight, she presents a lower factor of damage to the rail in operation. This might be mitigated by the fact that 14 has a 4-wheel lead truck, which would definitely provide superior tracking into curves as well as increased dampening of the hunting caused by the oscillation of the pistons. This advantage is decreased by the lower speeds and lower piston thrusts in service of the units in question.
A very interesting detail to investigate would be to put both engines on rollers and determine the actual dynamic augment present in each locomotive and make a determination based on simple mathematics to determine which engine presents a greater risk to the integrity of the rail. Again, as above, the lower piston thrusts, lighter weight and lower speeds of these two engines makes this argument less critical than in an engine that weighs in at 700-800 thousand pounds and regularly ran in excess of 60mph.
As an additional mechanical argument, lets go into the internal boiler design. While 14 IS superior in fuel efficency due to its front-end superheater, I would argue that the increased costs of maintenance on the aforementioned superheater assembly... the tubes and the header.. would mitigate the fuel efficiency advantages. Further, back when 14 was built, it may have been considered unnecessary, however today it is nearly universally accepted that a hydrostatic lubricator is NOT adequate to lubricate superheated cylinders. In order to bring 14 back to service, either the superheater should be removed, or the engine equipped with a mechanical lubricator, either way making it less original than it was.
Mountcastle wrote:Finally, the tender in use is correctly paired with No. 14, not with No. 18. No. 14's tender is too large for No. 18 and looks it, thus robbing 18 of even more points.
In the realm of fair comparisons, then, No. 14 wins hands-down in my opinion. Apart from all of that exists reality, however: a world in which No. 18 is restored and operational and in which No. 14 is a rusting pile of steel. And in that world, No. 18 is queen. Long may she reign. That much having been acknowledged, however, I still hold out hope that the queen's reign will be supplanted by a restored No. 14, one day. Or, perhaps better stated, my hope is for a joint monarchy in which both locomotives rule the rails, together.
Okay, 14's tender being coupled to 18 is true, we all know this. While I haven't had the opportunity to confirm this in actual tests, I believe that the tender frames of each unit are nearly identical in length, being within 2-6" of each other. The difference is that 14's water tank extends to the rear of the deck, while 18's water tank was cut short, leaving nearly a foot of open space at the tail end. This feature was most prominent in old narrow-gauge engines where they placed the locomotive's main air reservoir... usually as a retrofit to older non-automatic brake equipped locomotives. Why this was done is purely speculation, however my thought is that it reduced the weight of the tender shell for the lighter tracks of the Cuba plantations which this engine was built for.
Swapping tenders between engines was not at all uncommon. In fact, that is the reason that the practice of painting the unit number under the cab window and the generic railroad name on the sides of the tender was established. For a good example, look at ATSF 3751. At 11 years old, she was overhauled in 1938 which included swapping out her tender for a different one, increasing her water capacity to 20,000gal and her fuel capacity to 7,107gal.
Yes, it would be nice for 18 to have her tender back, but the only real reason to want this is because 14 would need it.
Having made this debate, lets go one step further.... (I'll add the next segment as a new post)
_________________
__ J. D. Gallaway __
http://me.fccorp.us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Certainly a high-stepping engine IS better than a consol for passenger service. Let me know when you find one. No.14's drivers only 8" bigger than No.18's little 50" ones. Now, if you want to see high-stepping, check out the 64" drivers of Middletown & Hummelstown No.91. (Short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPDYaDy0TyU - Long Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPDYaDy0TyU, I ESPECIALLY like the long video at 5:20 as the engine climbs across Swatara Creek and the 3% grade to the Indian Echo Caverns. The grade here is steeper and the curve tighter than those found on Horseshoe Curve west of Altoona) Despite being built in 1910, CN built these E-10a's for branchline commuter service. As a result they regularly reached speeds of 60mph, and as the long video shows, she is still perfectly capable of lugging it out on the grades with her taller drivers.
