>>1253772Just reading over the wikipedia page, and I think it wasn't adopted in the US because there wasn't any real advantage to the design on American railroads.
So the idea seems to be that by putting more power into an engine you could cram more engine into the same space and save costs by not doubleheading and having to pay two crews.
That's not a very big advantage in the US, as outside of the northeast, very few railways were size-constrained. We've always had a very generous loading gauge. So when we needed more power, we just made the locomotive bigger. Curve radius was a bigger deal to us than trackside clearance.
>>1254350Ironically, the T1 came about to replace the rising costs the Pennsy was incurring by doubleheading K4s, and I think it proves my point. Not only is it a huge engine, it's not even articulated. Even in the northeast, track clearance was never that big a deal for us.
