>>1773005>Why were the PRR and Santa Fe so autistic about keeping fixed frame locomotives?Ok, so on the Pennsy, a good amount of their electrics are artics. GG1, DD1, etc. When it comes to steam, however, they never really found good enough success with them. Two of the very few classes of articulated steam on the line were the CC1 (0-8-8-0) & HH1 (2-8-8-2; ex-N&W Y3; pictured). IIRC, the HH1's were brought on during WW2, being cut up in '51. The CC1's were pre-war heavy flat switchers.
On the Santa Fe, however, they just didn't need them. Being out in the western part of the US, they had all the free space they wanted. They could build their infrastructure as large as possible, with large sweeping curves even, which they did. That, and they dieselized pretty quick. Passenger services were targeted for it first; they didn't bother with freight dieselization too much until afterwards.
>>1773061>I have no doubt articulation would have been the eventual conclusion....It's entirely possible. Last I heard, they trialed an N&W A (2-6-6-4) alongside the C&O T1. Had steam continued long enough, they might've decided to copy that design as well, maybe make a Challenger out of it.
